Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge

Bandola‐Gill, Justyna

doi:10.1093/scipol/scz037

Cited by 49 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our distinctions between scientific progress and societal progress as major aims, as well as the distinction between citation impact and usage, are relevant for a more recent contest between two influential research policies and their evaluation criteria. Although seemingly in harmony (top research performance is best for society), the so-called Excellence Policy with a focus on the citation impact of international publications, and the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) policy with a focus on societal interaction and presence in local media, are not aligned but in conflict (D'Este et al, 2018;Bandola-Gill, 2019;Zhang & Sivertsen, 2020;Sivertsen, 2021). Referring to our results, it might be tempting to place female researchers on one side of this conflict.…”

Section: Part 5 Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Zhang

Sivertsen

et al. 2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study uses mixed methods -classical citation analysis, altmetric analysis, a survey with researchers as respondents, and text analysis of the abstracts of scientific articles -to investigate gender differences in the aims and impacts of research. We find that male researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at scientific progress, which is more cited. Female researchers more often value and engage in research mainly aimed at contributing to societal progress, which has more abstract views (usage). The gender differences are observed among researchers who work in the same field of research and have the same age and academic position. Our findings have implications for evaluation and funding policies and practices. A critical discussion of how societal engagement versus citation impact is valued, and how funding criteria reflect gender differences, is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Part 5 Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Zhang

Sivertsen

et al. 2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern research in policy-and practice-oriented fields like the social sciences is expected to resonate with and be useful for policymakers and practitioners. Research funding organizations and universities prioritize research relevance, pathways to impact, and knowledge exchange (Bandola-Gill, 2019). Universities include research impact in their mission statements and evaluation criteria, and go as far as to employ or designate knowledge exchange professionals (Knight & Lightowler, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) face the challenge of making an impact on both science and society (Bandola-Gill, 2019;Brownson et al, 2006). One approach to driving this impact is through knowledge exchange interventions, or activities specifically designed to disseminate knowledge from research or researchers to the general public, policymakers, or practitioners (Morton, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and the real world: Analyzing the short- and long-term impact of knowledge transfer

Caves¹,

Lueling²

2021

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge exchange interventions are an important driver of research impact. This study examines 5 years of intensive knowledge-exchange ‘reform labs’ in the field of education policy. Using qualitative analysis and a regression analysis approach applied to rich case data and quantitative results, we find that the reform labs have a significant impact on both participants and their reform projects in the short-term immediately after the event and in the medium term up to 5 years later. We also find evidence that the impact on individuals and projects drives broader social impact. We take a holistic approach to the knowledge brokerage of designing the reform labs and find that across contexts and project phases, but highly costly. In comparing the reform labs to best practices identified in the literature, we find evidence that knowledge exchange interventions of longer duration, with case-focused teamwork, and involving intensive researcher–participant interaction are more impactful. Additionally, we observe that diverse participants can drive impact and their needs must be considered.

show abstract

“…Lavis et al, 2003;Donovan and Hanney, 2011;Kok and Schuit, 2012;Redman et al, 2015;Bandola-Gill, 2019;Edwards and Meagher, 2019;Wreford et al, 2019);…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the anticipated policy impact of research outputs: introducing the SPEIDY framework

Saidi¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS) division of the Scottish Government funds research expected to directly support the Government’s needs for science-based policy. However, the pathway from research to policy impact is rarely linear, with impact often resulting from the interrelationships of many factors. Attributing a change in policy to research activities is therefore not straightforward, especially if, like RESAS, one wants to evaluate impact in a short timeframe after a piece of research is completed. Therefore, this study aims to scope for an appropriate evaluation framework to assess the anticipated policy impact of research outputs generated by RESAS’ research providers. It intends to provide researchers with timely information on the expected contribution of their outputs to policymaking and the extent to which these contributions are likely to be realised: its main purposes are therefore learning and improvement. The framework was developed based on practices in Scottish Centres of Expertise and other organisations globally, as well as on current knowledge regarding the contribution of research to policy. Factors influencing the likelihood of research utilisation in policymaking were identified across the formulation, production and dissemination phases of research. The author is proposing a framework – termed Single-Product Evaluation for Immediate DeliverY (SPEIDY) – which assesses these factors in order to provide a picture of the likelihood of research use, and which allows to characterise this use along four categories: conceptual, instrumental, political and/or imposed. The evaluation relies on a survey collecting feedback from the policymaking team, which takes less than four minutes to complete and occurs at the time of final validation of the output. The framework, which contains both a conceptual part laying out impact-related factors and an analytical part detailing the feedback survey process, participates in current efforts to mainstream evidence-based evaluation practices. It addresses current barriers to impact evaluation in the RESAS’ research providers and its implementation could facilitate the uptake of best practices contributing to research impact.

show abstract

Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge

Cited by 49 publications

References 67 publications

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research

Research and the real world: Analyzing the short- and long-term impact of knowledge transfer

Evaluating the anticipated policy impact of research outputs: introducing the SPEIDY framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About