Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization

Matt, Mireille; Gaunand, Ariane; Joly, Pierre; Colinet, Laurence

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.016

Cited by 63 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This case study is presented from the perspective of the researchers who developed the River Styles Framework, and the University Impact co-ordinator who has worked with the researchers to document and measure the impact as part of ex post assessment 1,7 . We highlight challenges in planning for impact, as the research impact pathway evolves and entails significant lag times 8 . We discuss challenges that remain in the mapping process, particularly when trying to measure and attribute ‘soft’ impacts such as a change in practice or philosophy, an improvement in environmental condition, or a reduction in community conflict to a particular initiative or innovation 9 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging with research impact assessment for an environmental science case study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact assessment is embedded in many national and international research rating systems. Most applications use the Research Impact Pathway to track inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes of an invention or initiative to assess impact beyond scholarly contributions to an academic research field (i.e., benefits to environment, society, economy and culture). Existing approaches emphasise easy to attribute ‘hard’ impacts, and fail to include a range of ‘soft’ impacts that are less easy to attribute, yet are often a dominant part of the impact mix. Here, we develop an inclusive 3-part impact mapping approach. We demonstrate its application using an environmental initiative.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging with research impact assessment for an environmental science case study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The framework builds on work by e.g. Matt et al (2016), Spaapen and Van Drooge (2011), and Prins and Spaapen (2017), by conceptualising scholarly work not in terms of a linear diffusion of knowledge, but rather as an emergent effect of an unfolding, multidirectional research process. Evaluative inquiry reveals the epistemic commitments and community values of local practices.…”

Section: Discussion: Evaluation As Knowledge Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluative Inquiry: Engaging research evaluation analytically and strategically

Rijcke

Holtrop

Kaltenbrunner

et al. 2019

Fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation Issue 48/July 2019 - Proceedings of the Conference "Impact of Soci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluative inquiry was proposed by Fochler and De Rijcke (2017) as a way to contribute to ongoing discussions about quality and relevance of research. Our team at CWTS (Leiden University, The Netherlands) has since then put the evaluative inquiry into practice in several projects, and this work informs this paper. Our ambition with these experiments in research evaluation is, in essence, to enable better conversations about academic value and its beneficiaries and rewards, rather than to further encourage "accounting for impact" (Rushforth and De Rijcke, 2015) by way of standardised formats and rankings.

show abstract

“…Dalrymple, 1977;Pardey et al, 2016), observing the impact of agriculture research on specific outcomes takes time, and the impact involves a large number of processes, which, often, are difficult to identify. The attribution of societal impact to specific research efforts is problematic (Matt et al, 2017;Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011). Rather, we investigate whether research prioritised in a country during a given time period focuses on the problems perceived as important in that same period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%