Usable, in‐use, and useful research: A 3U framework for demonstrating practice impact

Pan, Shan L.; Pee, Loo Geok

doi:10.1111/isj.12274

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The utilization of research is also expected to have observable benefits on outcomes that matter in practice. The most recent framework by Pan and Pee ( 2020 ) covers all the common types of impact while distinguishing between efficiency and effectiveness as valuable outcomes of research utilization (see Table 2 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most recent framework by Pan and Pee ( 2020 ) covers all the common types of impact while distinguishing between efficiency and effectiveness as valuable outcomes of research utilization (see Table 2 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Along with scholarly impact, researchers are increasingly seeking to understand how their work makes a difference in the real world (Glänzel and Chi 2020 ; Pee and Kankanhalli 2009 ). The practice impact of research refers to “the observable benefit of research on relevant stakeholder groups beyond academia, such as individuals, organizations, communities, industries, or economies, generated through interactions with them” (Pan and Pee 2020 , p. 4). In the emerging responsible research movement, many even consider societal needs as functional requirements for the design and development of new research projects (Asveld and van Dam-Mieras 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Societal impact of research: a text mining study of impact types

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to academic impact, researchers are increasingly concerned with understanding and demonstrating the practical impact of research outside academia. Several frameworks capturing key impact types have been developed based on project experiences, expert opinions, and surveys. This empirical study seeks to contribute to this development by identifying impact types documented in 6,882 case studies submitted to impact evaluation groups in Australia (Engagement and Impact Assessment) and the United Kingdom (Research Excellence Framework). The results of text mining indicate three emerging impact types that extend existing frameworks in terms of the recognition of new opportunities, the length of use, and experience improvement, thereby allowing a variety of researchers, not just those who address popular, short-term, and instrumental issues, to understand and demonstrate their practice impact.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Societal impact of research: a text mining study of impact types

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are many new opportunities, such as citizen science (Levy & Germonprez, 2017;Lukyanenko et al, 2019) and other forms of engaged research, that are found rather rarely in IS research. Journal editors and conference organisers could equally promote the prevalence of such research by, for example, establishing new genres and formats, such as policy briefs and software reviews (Pan & Pee, 2020), that facilitate expanding the societal impact of IS research. This would particularly help more problem-driven and engaged scholars to obtain recognition for their work under the current citation-based promotion and tenure system.…”

Section: Recommendations For Moving Forward and Making A Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Are we on the right track? an update to Lyytinen et al.’s commentary on why the old world cannot publish

Mettler

Sunyaev

2021

European Journal of Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a thought-provoking paper published in EJIS more than a decade ago, Lyytinen and colleagues asked the question, why does the "old world" perform poorly in high academic impact publishing? This triggered a lively debate on the epistemological and methodological traditions, preferences, and research practices of Europeans versus North Americans that has lasted until today. Is it still true, we asked ourselves, that European scholars generate less academic impact than their North American colleagues? Is the European research context indeed disadvantageous for developing high academic impact research? In this paper, we set out to explore these questions by analysing the Google Scholar profiles of 1713 IS researchers from all over the world. Our findings show that Northern and Western European scholars no longer seem to differ significantly from their North American peers, even though the different research contexts still exercise a certain level of influence. However, is this a development the "old world" desires? We provide an assessment and some suggestions for the future of European IS research.

show abstract

“…In the sixth article, Pan and Pee () note that research should make the world a better place. They consider the practice impact of research by addressing three questions that frequently arise among researchers: What constitutes practice impact?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research contributions: The role of the iconoclast

Davison

2019

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature of "normal" research, as practiced by the vast majority of researchers, is that it is incremental. Research designs typically build on the work of prior research. Existing standards of rigour are, more or less, upheld. Findings conform, to a greater or lesser extent, with what was predicted. There is nothing inherently wrong with this process, yet the incremental nature of research designs tends to lead to incremental contributions. With time, and considerable effort, these findings can accumulate into something more substantial, but it tends to be a slow and drawn-out process. Is this the best way to build knowledge in a time of rapid technological change? Occasionally a more radically innovative contribution is developed. It may take the form of a new theory that departs in some significant way from prior work. It may be a new method, tool, or technique that goes beyond the mere tweaking of earlier methods, tools, and techniques. In more revolutionary forms, the new contribution may be so novel, so groundbreaking, that it destroys the very foundations of earlier work, setting out a new paradigm for future work (Kuhn, 1962). This revolutionary approach to research is sparked by a person sometimes referred to as an iconoclast. Iconoclasts are, probably fortunately, few and far between. Fortunately, because too much destruction means too little accumulation of knowledge and experience, too little repetition of what works before it is overthrown, and too much risk that faulty paradigms will emerge and consume our limited attention. Pagel (2012) observes that copying is an excellent survival technique: we do not all need to be iconoclastic innovators. Berns (2010, pp. 5-6) defines an iconoclast as "a person who does something that others say can't be done," noting that the Nobel prize is "the crown-jewel of paradigm-shifting iconoclastic thinking." In order to do what others say cannot be done, the budding iconoclast must both be familiar with prior work and yet also embrace novelty and even "alien thinking" (cf. Davison, 2017). The act of embracing novelty requires challenging the current state of the art, developing a compelling new narrative and design, and then putting that design into practice, demonstrating its superiority over earlier instantiations. This kind of work takes many years or lifetimes: iconoclasts start the process, but their work needs to be accepted and mainstreamed by many others for the new ideas to be more widely accepted. Novelty often inspires fear because we tend to shun unfamiliar things. Fear thus acts as an inhibitor of novelty. In the context of academic research, there are three specific fears: fear of uncertainty, fear of failure, and fear of public ridicule (Berns, 2010). First, the fear of uncertainty is often rooted in cultural norms, whether of societies or professional associations. For instance, we may be uncertain as to whether we have expressed a new idea in a logical and convincing way; if our supporting arguments are strong enough; if a particular course of acti...

show abstract

Usable, in‐use, and useful research: A 3U framework for demonstrating practice impact

Cited by 34 publications

References 27 publications

Societal impact of research: a text mining study of impact types

Societal impact of research: a text mining study of impact types

Are we on the right track? an update to Lyytinen et al.’s commentary on why the old world cannot publish

Research contributions: The role of the iconoclast

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About