Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox

Abstract

Many countries have amended legislation and introduced policies to stimulate universities to transfer their knowledge to society. The effects of these policies on scientists are relatively unexplored. We employ principal-agent theory to increase our understanding of the relationship between impact policies and scientific practice. Our methodology includes the analysis of policy documents and of data gathered in focus groups. We conclude that there is a gap between policy on the one hand and how scientists perceive it on the other. Policy documents put forward a broad notion of impact, but scientists perceive them as focusing too narrowly on commercial impacts. Scientists are further puzzled by how societal impact is evaluated and organised, and their perceptions frame their behaviour. Our policy recommendations focus on improving the interaction between intermediaries, such as universities and research councils, and scientists so as to include the latter's perspective in policy-making.

Facilitating Patient and Public Involvement in basic and preclinical health research

“…I can’t delegate any work in relation to PPI because I don’t think enough people know what it is and what to do.” In particular, researchers who had no experience in PPI had the strongest sense that the time consuming nature of PPI outweighed it’s benefit to preclinical research “Time spent engaging with patients is time spent away from doing research”. Again, this could be influenced by the lack of experience in engaging patients and the perceived lack of guidance and clarity around PPI (15) and dissociation between preclinical research and policy setting (16-18).…”

Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations

“…Societal impact is of lesser importance in most current reward systems. The third mission of universities is perceived as a new and sometimes inappropriate task, with which scientists struggle (De Jong et al 2016;Hessels 2010).…”

Different worlds? Finding complementarity between research and societal impact activities

“…Many studies of the societal impact of research foreground universities' changing roles, often in the context of their funding conditions (Bornmann 2013;Hessels 2010;De Jong et al 2016; Morris and Rip 2006;Blume & Spaapen 1988). A parallel claim emerges that this has challenged universities' accepted societal roles self-evident, introverted, self-accountable institutions, funded based on the general belief in science's usefulness, with more direct proof being demanded for their usefulness (Olssen and Peters 2005).…”

“…In the absence of a clear definition of what good societal impact is, researchers face uncertainty regarding the expectations they face regarding impact (De Jong et al 2016). Researchers may both struggle with making their research relevant, as with finding compelling ways to explain their research's wider societal relevance to their stakeholders (Hessels 2010).…”