This article explores the current literature on ‘research impact’ in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we take a systematic look at the impact agenda within SSH. The primary objective of this article is to examine key methodological components used to assess research impact comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities, and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics.

In this paper, I present a philosophical analysis of interdisciplinary scientific activities. I suggest that it is a fruitful approach to view interdisciplinarity in light of the recent literature on scientific representations. For this purpose I develop a meta-representational model in which interdisciplinarity is viewed in part as a process of integrating distinct scientific representational approaches. The analysis suggests that present methods for the evaluation of interdisciplinary projects places too much emphasis non-epistemic aspects of disciplinary integrations while more or less ignoring whether specific interdisciplinary collaborations puts us in a better, or worse, epistemic position. This leads to the conclusion that there are very good reasons for recommending a more cautious, systematic, and stringent approach to the development, evaluation, and execution of interdisciplinary science.

In this article, we present a conceptual framework for studying research impact focusing on the foundations that need to be in place to accelerate an observable change of policy, practice or behaviour. The article investigates the relationship between micro-impacts and societal change, and how smaller impacts scale into larger cascades of end effects and value creation. We define micro-impacts as interactions and connections where information is exchanged between a researcher or research group and external audiences, stakeholders or co-producers. Micro-impacts are elements in highly complex causal relations between research activities and larger societal macroshifts. We argue that even though these causal relations are complex, micro-impacts are tangible and observable and should be integrated in research evaluations as constitutive elements of causal impact relations leading to larger macroshifts. We suggest a working model for studying micro-impacts and for reflecting on the causality of impacts by drawing on contributions from philosophy of causation. A proper understanding of causation is a prerequisite for eventually understanding and capturing research impact, which itself is a prerequisite for responsible research assessment and planning.

I et vidensbaseret demokrati er det vigtigt, at aktuel, pålidelig og relevant viden er tilgængelig i beslutningsprocesser hos myndigheder, regering og Folketing. Relationen mellem forskning, rådgivning og politiske beslutninger er imidlertid ikke altid fredsommelig. På stort set alle politikområder drøftes det, om kvalificeret viden og verificeret information finder vej til de rigtige beslutningstagere eller om borgere, medier og politikere ligger under for misinformation, diskrediteret forskning og anekdotisk evidens. I denne artikel kortlægger forfatterne, hvordan postfaktuelle tendenser i samfundet skal beskrives som et resultat af flere sammenfaldende faktorer samt hvordan vidensinstitutioner, videnskabelig rådgivning og myndighedsbetjening kan være med til at garantere en balanceret fremstilling af forskning og data på områder af relevans for politiske beslutningsprocesser.

The philosophy of science is going through exciting times. New and productive relationships are being sought with the history of science. Illuminating and innovative comparisons are being developed between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of art. The role of mathematics in science is being opened up to renewed scrutiny in the light of original case studies. The philosophies of particular sciences are both drawing on and feeding into new work in metaphysics and the relationships between science, metaphysics and the philosophy of science in general are being re-examined and reconfigured. The intention behind this new series from Palgrave Macmillan is to offer a new, dedicated, publishing forum for the kind of exciting new work in the philosophy of science that embraces novel directions and fresh perspectives. To this end, our aim is to publish books that address issues in the philosophy of science in the light of these new developments, including those that attempt to initiate a dialogue between various perspectives, offer constructive and insightful critiques, or bring new areas of science under philosophical scrutiny.