Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge

Olmos‐Peñuela, Julia; Benneworth, Paul Stephen; Castro‐Martínez, Elena

doi:10.1093/scipol/scw016

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are some parallels with the finding from a recent study looking to distil the factors that make researchers more likely to be open to including end-user's knowledge in their research processes (Olmos-Peñuela, Benneworth, & Castro-Martínez, 2016). This study found that personal characteristics do not affect the researchers' propensity to incorporate user knowledge, nor did different types of research fields (for example, those researchers in science fields compared to social science fields).…”

Section: The Importance Of Different Researcher Identitiessupporting

confidence: 53%

Improving knowledge transfer: A realist evaluation of the implementation of knowledge transfer pathways by a health research funder

Middleton¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Organisations whose mission is to fund health research are increasingly concerned with ensuring that the research they fund is used productively. The resulting interest in the concept of “knowledge transfer” has involved introducing policies to prompt researchers to think about their role, not just as knowledge producers, but as translators of research findings. In New Zealand, researchers can be asked, in their application for funds, to provide an account of what will happen to their research results. They are then judged on the quality of that account. However, little is known about how effectively this type of policy influences researchers to do more to make connections with those who use their findings. Using the explanatory power of the realist evaluative approach, this thesis examines the implementation of new instructions by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) for providing knowledge transfer pathways in research applications. A focus of the research is on how these instructions change (or do not change) the mind-set of researchers. Key informant interviews were held, and the scholarly and grey literature examined, to develop an initial theory on how researchers would be influenced by such instructions. Individual interviews were then held with researchers, seeking their reflections on what they had originally written in a specific knowledge transfer pathway and how this then matched up with what actually happened; these interviews were then used to refine the initial theory. Finally, an on-line survey was conducted with those who sat on the HRC’s research assessing committees in the 2014/15 funding round in order to refine the theory further. The final theory identified six mechanisms, which under different contexts, explain how the HRC’s knowledge transfer policy works (or does not work) to prompt researchers to reason differently. A continuum of reasoning in the form of a dimmer switch was used to explain circumstances where researchers may become more mindful of what is involved in knowledge transfer, but were not likely to markedly change their behaviours. Based on the assumption that the HRC wants to be more active in encouraging researchers to undertake activities other than producing research results, two recommendations are made: (1) knowledge transfer policies should support self-reflexivity by different groups of researchers rather than creating more hoops within the research application process, and (2) the processes by which knowledge transfer sections are judged needs to be strengthened if researchers are going to be confident that this is a “serious” part of the application process.</p>

show abstract

Section: The Importance Of Different Researcher Identitiessupporting

confidence: 53%

Improving knowledge transfer: A realist evaluation of the implementation of knowledge transfer pathways by a health research funder

Middleton¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also significant interdependencies between practices that connect academic scientists to industry, implying that it does not make sense to champion one practice as inherently preferable. Boosting university-industry interaction requires a range of approaches that grow out of underlying personal ties (Feller and Feldman 2010;Olmos-Peñuela, Benneworth, and Castro-Martínez 2016;. For instance, commercialisation will often be an outcome of or a follow-on activity to collaboration between academic scientists and industry actors, rather than a stand-alone activity (e.g.…”

Section: Industry Actors As Co-creators In the Scientific Research Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

Beck

Bergenholtz

Bogers

et al. 2020

Industry and Innovation

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Openness and collaboration in scientific research are attracting increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. However, a common understanding of these phenomena is hindered by disciplinary boundaries and disconnected research streams. We link dispersed knowledge on Open Innovation, Open Science, and related concepts such as Responsible Research and Innovation by proposing a unifying Open Innovation in Science (OIS) Research Framework. This framework captures the antecedents, contingencies, and consequences of open and collaborative practices along the entire process of generating and disseminating scientific insights and translating them into innovation. Moreover, it elucidates individual-, team-, organisation-, field-, and society-level factors shaping OIS practices. To conceptualise the framework, we employed a collaborative approach involving 47 scholars from multiple disciplines, highlighting both tensions and commonalities between existing approaches. The OIS Research Framework thus serves as a basis for future research, informs policy discussions, and provides guidance to scientists and practitioners.

show abstract

“…: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research's social value' (Olmos-Peñuela et al, 2014) and 'Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge' (Olmos-Peñuela et al, 2016).…”

Section: Paul Benneworthmentioning

confidence: 99%

A tribute to Puay Tang, Judit Bar-Ilan and Paul Benneworth

Jong¹

2022

Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is a tribute to Puay Tang, Judit Bar-Ilan and Paul Benneworth, three esteemed colleagues who passed away untimely. In this tribute, I commemorate some of the contributions of each of them to the broad field of assessment of the social sciences. Puay Tang contributed in particular to the recognition of the broader impact of the social sciences. Judit Bar-Ilan was well known for her contributions on altmetrics, blogs, and the comparative study of different bibliometric data sources. Paul Benneworth studied intensely the regional role of universities, with particular attention to the arts, humanities and social sciences.

show abstract

Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

Improving knowledge transfer: A realist evaluation of the implementation of knowledge transfer pathways by a health research funder

Improving knowledge transfer: A realist evaluation of the implementation of knowledge transfer pathways by a health research funder

The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach

A tribute to Puay Tang, Judit Bar-Ilan and Paul Benneworth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About