The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research

Benneworth, Paul Stephen; Gulbrandsen, Magnus; Hazelkorn, Ellen

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-40899-0

Cited by 48 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is only since 2005 that we have really started to see impact creation explicitly within research evaluation frameworks in leading countries (Benneworth et al, 2016;Petersohn & Heinze, 2017). From 2002 in the UK, grant applications had to include an impact statement, and from 2014, ex post impact creation featured in the REF as a specific area of resource allocation (Bulaitis, 2017).…”

Section: Societal Impact In the Framework Of Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From 2002 in the UK, grant applications had to include an impact statement, and from 2014, ex post impact creation featured in the REF as a specific area of resource allocation (Bulaitis, 2017). In the Netherlands, from 2000, impact was a policy goal, it featured in the 2005 SEP, and from 2009, it started to be taken seriously as a policy goal (Van der Meulen & Rip, 2000;Benneworth et al, 2016). But there remained an ambiguity in these assessment processes regarding precisely what need be assessed, and against which criteria (Molas-Gallart, 2014).…”

Section: Societal Impact In the Framework Of Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These narrow economic indicators are recognised as weak proxies for science investments' societal benefits, whether in the hard sciences (such as science, technology, engineering and medicine, hereafter STEM), or in other disciplinary fields, such as social sciences and humanities (SSH) (Donovan, 2007;Morton, 2015). Science policy has undertaken a huge descriptive effort to more precisely define impact, but it has proven difficult to get beyond description and define what precisely constitutes research's societal impact that is legitimate to both policy-makers and diverse disciplinary communities (Benneworth et al, 2016). One interesting development that progressed beyond describing diversity was the 'productive interactions' conceptual proposition (Spaapen & Van Drooge, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact

Muhonen¹,

Benneworth²,

Peñuela³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W www.utwente.nl/cheps 'counting interactions'. We address the wider conceptual framework for describing SSH pathways to societal impact by paying attention not only to productive interactions but to the changes they mediate. Drawing on a comparative analysis of 60 examples of SSH impact, we develop a typology of SSH pathways to societal impact. We conclude by arguing the usefulness of the extended conceptual framework and propose policy measures to stimulate and support impact processes.

show abstract

Section: Societal Impact In the Framework Of Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Societal Impact In the Framework Of Research Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact

Muhonen¹,

Benneworth²,

Peñuela³

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their 2013 Bioscience study, Roy et al report that 61 percent of environmental scientist respondents named institutional barriers, including tensions within departments and lack of credit for interdisciplinary work in promotion and tenure decisions, as the real obstacles facing radical interdisciplinarity in environmental research (Roy et al 2013, p. 745). But even those concerns may be only the symptoms of structural obstacles to the radical interdisciplinarity necessary to transform GEC research (Benneworth et al 2016). Beneath issues of credit and tenure lies the increased pressure on universities in the U.S. and Europe to justify their existence or funding through measurable evidence of innovation.…”

Section: Introduction: the Aspirational Impact Of Environmental Humanmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can Humanities Interventions Promote Progress in the Environmental Sciences?

Kitch

2017

Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental humanists make compelling arguments about the importance of the environmental humanities (EH) for discovering new ways to conceptualize and address the urgent challenges of the environmental crisis now confronting the planet. Many environmental scientists in a variety of fields are also committed to incorporating socio-cultural analyses in their work. Despite such intentions and rhetoric, however, and some humanists' eagerness to incorporate science into their own work, "radical interdisciplinarity [across the humanities and sciences] is ... rare ... and does not have the impact one would hope for" (Holm et al. 2013, p. 32). This article discusses reasons for the gap between transdisciplinary intentions and the work being done in the environmental sciences. The article also describes a project designed to address that gap. Entitled "From Innovation to Progress: Addressing Hazards of the Sustainability Sciences", the project encourages humanities interventions in problem definition, before any solution or action is chosen. Progress offers strategies for promoting expanded stakeholder engagement, enhancing understanding of power struggles and inequities that underlie problems and over-determine solutions, and designing multiple future scenarios based on alternative values, cultural practices and beliefs, and perspectives on power distribution and entitlement.

show abstract

“…The European Commission's Horizon 2020 programme shifted from disciplinary orientations towards seven Grand Challenges requiring multidisciplinary consortia, leaving monodisciplinary science research to the European Research Council and national funding agencies (Benneworth et al, 2016). Certain disciplines' representatives, most notably the social sciences and humanities, have expressed concern regarding their epistemic domination by technological disciplines in both funding streams and research content, processes that leave the humanities almost entirely absent (Else, 2013;Greenhalgh, 2013;Lee, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges

Maxwell

Benneworth

2018

Palgrave Commun

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an increasing recognition that there is a class of problems that society must solve urgently in the twenty-first century if humanity is to survive into the twentysecond century-the so-called 'Grand Challenges'. Science policymakers have been active in recognising these challenges and the attendant need to develop new multidisciplinary ways of working. But embracing multidisciplinarity is not a straightforward choice for scientists, who individually are strongly steered by norms and values inculcated through their past scientific experiences. In this paper, therefore, we ask whether new funding approaches can contribute to creating new ways of working by scientists towards challenge-driven research, specifically by changing scientists' expectations and beliefs. We address this research question with reference to a single new experimental method, the 'research sandpit', implemented experimentally in a single national science system, Norway. Our data are derived from interviews with scientists involved in the five research projects funded as a result of the first sandpit, called 'Idélab' (idea lab) and held in 2014, and with the Research Council of Norway. We conclude that the sandpit approach appeared to shift research perceptions of individual scientists, particularly around long-term belief structures. This implies that, when well managed, the sandpit model can indeed be useful to generate multidisciplinary research as part of a multifaceted approach to funding scientific research.

show abstract

The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research

Cited by 48 publications

References 0 publications

From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact

From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact

How Can Humanities Interventions Promote Progress in the Environmental Sciences?

The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About