How do researchers approach societal impact?

Abstract

Based on a communication-centered approach, this article examines how researchers approach societal impact, that is, what they think about societal impact in research governance, what their societal goals are, and how they use communication formats. Hence, this study offers empirical evidence on a group that has received remarkably little attention in the scholarly discourse on the societal impact of research—academic researchers. Our analysis is based on an empirical survey among 499 researchers in Germany conducted from April to June 2020. We show that most researchers regard societal engagement as part of their job and are generally in favor of impact evaluation. However, few think that societal impact is a priority at their institution, and even fewer think that institutional communication departments reach relevant stakeholders in society. Moreover, we show that researchers’ societal goals and use of communication formats differ greatly between their disciplines and the types of organization that they work at. Our results add to the ongoing metascientific discourse on the relationship between science and society and offer empirical support for the hypothesis that assessment needs to be sensitive to disciplinary and organizational context factors.

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

“…The specific importance for academics of addressing the sizeable, diverse and not necessarily interested audience of mainstream media is evident in the many references to such cases when researchers bring up the societal impact they believe they have facilitated. A prominent strategy among researchers is to rely on attention from mainstream media, this provides non-academic benefits which complement scientific recognition (Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ). Many feel that using their privileged insights to weigh on the public debate is a key responsibility (Valinciute, 2020 ), and that research-based opinions benefit societal debates.…”

“…When appearances of researchers in mainstream media are related to SIUR, both in impact assessments (see Kassab ( 2019 ); Watermeyer and Chubb ( 2019 )) and research (Bauer & Jensen, 2011 ; Dudo, 2012 ; Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ), they are mostly self-reported. This provides relevant insights, but is insufficient for the purposes of the present paper.…”

“…This latter category in particular, emphasizes the societal impact of university research (SIUR) as a key element for more holistic constructions of scientific excellence (Sivertsen & Meijer, 2020 ; Smit & Hessels, 2021 ). It has brought non-scholarly forms of communication to the interest of research evaluation, both in science studies (Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ; Kassab, 2019 ) and assessment instruments (Muhonen et al, 2019 ). For instance, novel quantitative tools like altmetrics seek to attribute a certain degree of societal recognition based on non-scholarly communication (Sud & Thelwall, 2013 ).…”

“…Second, the recognition of documented mainstream media presence in (qualitative) SIUR evaluations (Kassab, 2019 ; Smit & Hessels, 2021 ) is also increasing. Thirdly, there is the emphasis researchers place on lending their expertise to the media in pursuit of societal benefits (Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ). These three arguments would certainly lend legitimacy to such an integration is emerging in the minds of policymakers.…”

“…In fact, private service providers like the Dutch company ScienceWorks already monitor annual references to university researchers in Dutch newspapers as one component of their Impact Ranking , which purports to rank Dutch universities by various parameters that would approximate their societal impact. But although featuring in the media is advocated (1) in the name of open science (Bucher, 2019 ), (2) habitually recognized in qualitative SIUR assessments (Watermeyer & Hedgecoe, 2016 ) and (3) cited by researchers as a way to pursue non-academic impact (Fecher & Hebing, 2021 ), little empirical evidence exists that supports or refutes its perceived merits. It remains unclear, for instance, whether merely featuring in written press coverage necessarily signals a significant contribution by researchers.…”