In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society

Hessels, Laurens K.; Lente, Harro van; Smits, Ruud

doi:10.3152/030234209x442034

Cited by 154 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An agreement between funders/policymakers and the review team is reached with the aim of compiling evidence to improve understanding and with practical application [50]. No M A N U S C R I P T…”

Section: Searching To Explore the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Harris

Booth

Cargo

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

138

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper updates previous Cochrane guidance on question formulation,searching and protocol development, reflecting recent developments in methods for conducting qualitative evidence syntheses to inform Cochrane intervention reviews. Examples are used to illustrate how decisions about boundaries for a review are formed via an iterative process of constructing lines of inquiry, and mapping the information available to ascertain whether evidence exists to answer questions related to effectiveness, implementation, feasibility, appropriateness, economic evidence, and equity. The process of question formulation allows reviewers to situate the topic in relation to how it informs and explains effectiveness, using the criterion of meaningfulness, appropriateness, feasibility and implementation. Questions related to complex questions and interventions can be structured by drawing on an increasingly wide range of question frameworks. Logic models and theoretical frameworks are useful tools for conceptually mapping the literature to illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon of interest. Further, protocol development may require iterative question formulation and searching. Consequently, the final protocol may function as a guide rather than a prescriptive route-map, particularly in qualitative reviews that ask more exploratory and open ended questions.Keywords: Systematic reviews, question formulation, Cochrane Collaboration, methods, qualitative evidence synthesis. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Word count: 4014 words excluding tables and references Key findings:Tools and methods are recommended to assist reviewers in developing protocols, which accommodate alternative approaches to question formulation and searching and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis. What this adds to what was known?Questions within qualitative and implementation systematic review protocols may be indicative, allowing more detailed questions to be formulated when more information is needed on specific aspects of the review. A broader range of question formats is presented, to reflect the need for reviews that explore and generate theory. What is the implication and what should change now?This guidance provides examples of protocols for qualitative evidence synthesis that are flexible, to allow the incorporation of open-ended and exploratory review questions and iterative searching methods. 'recontextualise' effectiveness. Recontextualising requires considering effectiveness research in relation to issues in society [4] to enable a decision-maker to make an informed decision about whether an intervention is likely to be useful and whether that intervention is applicable to their local population. Qualitative research produces contingent and experiential knowledge on why interventions work the way that they do (or fail to work) [5]. Further, implementation questions provide information on how the implementation process produces...

show abstract

Section: Searching To Explore the Evidence Basementioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Harris

Booth

Cargo

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

138

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arguably, the dominant regime-excellence-is often associated with the rise in bibliometric performance indicators such as the JIF and other citation-based indicators. These measurements have come to play an important constitutive role in shaping reputational dynamics in biomedical research, not only by virtue of their use by "external" actors governing the allocation of funding and career opportunities (Hessels, Van Lente, and Smits 2009) Although standardized metrics of excellence have become an increasingly stabilized and obligatory regime of worth in recent times , there have also been growing regional and international backlashes. Varied sources and movements have criticized standardized excellence regimes in biomedicine for being at odds with patient-focused ideals upon which the vast expenditure on biomedical research is usually mandated (Alberts et al 2014;Benedictus, Miedema, and Ferguson 2016;Macleod et al 2014).…”

Section: Basic and Applied Spheres Of Inquiry In Biomedicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups

Rushforth

Franssen

Rijcke

2018

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How are "interesting" research problems identified and made durable by academic researchers, particularly in situations defined by multiple evaluation principles? Building on two case studies of research groups working on rare diseases in academic biomedicine, we explore how group leaders arrange their groups to encompass research problems that latch onto distinct evaluation principles by dividing and combining work into "basicoriented" and "clinical-oriented" spheres of inquiry. Following recent developments in the sociology of (e)valuation comparing academics to capitalist entrepreneurs in pursuit of varying kinds of worth, we argue that the metaphor of the portfolio is helpful in analyzing how group leaders manage these different research lines as "alternative investment options" from which they were variously hoping to capitalize. We argue portfolio development is a useful concept for exploring how group leaders fashion "entrepreneurial" practices to manage and exploit tensions between multiple matrices of (e)valuation and conclude with suggestions for how this vocabulary can further extend analysis of epistemic capitalism within science and technology studies.

show abstract

“…And in this century a number of national and European arrangements are being set up to support research oriented at global challenges (EC 2017a), such as Joint Programming Initiatives (EC 2017b) and Knowledge and Innovation Communities. At every turn, new collaborative arrangements are introduced into the research system, with the intention to enable and stimulate a joint academic and industrial effort (Stirling 2006;Hessels et al 2009;Rip 2004). Gradually, the research system has become increasingly heterogeneous, with the quest for relevance as a strong driver.…”

Section: Changing Policy Context: the Quest For Relevancementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations

Drooge

Spaapen

2017

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we focus on the governance, in particular evaluation and monitoring, of the growing number of transdisciplinary collaborations (TDC's). Researchers and a variety of stakeholders collaborate in such TDC's, the purpose of which is to address societal challenges, like renewable energy, healthy aging or better language teaching in schools. Commonly used practices for evaluation of scientific research (accountability, rankings and benchmarking, dedicated to scientific excellence) do not fit the goals of TDC's. A bottom up or stakeholder oriented approach is better suited; one that stimulates mutual learning as well as the development of socially robust knowledge. We introduce the participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA), as a method that suits the requirements. It has been developed in the context of development research. Two crucial features are the involvement of stakeholders from the start, and the joint development of a theory of change. This narrates what one wants to achieve and how that will be achieved. From this, stakeholders construct a logical frame that serves as a source for indicators. These indicators enable monitoring ex durante, during the TDC. We present evidence of the use of PIPA for a TDC. From this empirical evidence a number of issues with regard to evaluation, monitoring and indicators can be identified that require attention. Most prominent is the change of function of indicators. Instead of looking back and a focus on past performance, indicators look forward, in the short, intermediate and more distant future.

show abstract

In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society

Cited by 154 publications

References 17 publications

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 2: methods for question formulation, searching, and protocol development for qualitative evidence synthesis

Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups

Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About