IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v45y2016i4p884-895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research

Author

Listed:
  • McNie, Elizabeth C.
  • Parris, Adam
  • Sarewitz, Daniel

Abstract

Decision makers call upon and fund science to solve urgent problems, catalyze innovation, and inform policy decisions. But the standard categories for describing, planning and assessing research, especially the persistence of “basic” and “applied,” conceal much of the complexity and diversity of the contexts for conducting and using research, especially the role of knowledge users in the research process. Here we provide an entirely new typology aimed at allowing a more complete view of research activities and expectations, in order to improve deliberation and decision-making about research and its desired contribution to public values. Our multi-dimensional research typology divides research into three general activities: knowledge production, learning and engagement, and organizational and institutional processes, all of which are further subdivided into fifteen attributes. These idealized attributes are expressed in terms of a spectrum of value criteria ranging from strongly science-centric to strongly user-oriented. This enables consideration of the isolated knowledge value of science, the consideration and context of use, and the engagement of intended users. Used as a heuristic device, the typology can help inform and improve science-policy planning and decisions, aid in assessing the potential of existing projects, programs and institutions to achieve particular goals, and yield insights about the strengths and weaknesses of completed projects.

Suggested Citation

  • McNie, Elizabeth C. & Parris, Adam & Sarewitz, Daniel, 2016. "Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 884-895.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:4:p:884-895
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316000056
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:hrv:hksfac:5345878 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jack Spaapen & Leonie van Drooge, 2011. "Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 211-218, September.
    3. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    4. Wynanda I. Van Enst & Peter P. J. Driessen & Hens A. C. Runhaar, 2014. "Towards Productive Science-Policy Interfaces: A Research Agenda," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-25.
    5. Cash, David & Clark, William & Alcock, Frank & Dickson, Nancy & Eckley, Noelle & Jager, Jill, 2002. "Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making," Working Paper Series rwp02-046, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    7. Leimona, Beria & van Noordwijk, Meine & de Groot, Rudolf & Leemans, Rik, 2015. "Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 16-28.
    8. Claire Donovan, 2011. "State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 175-179, September.
    9. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    10. Daniel Z. Levin & Rob Cross, 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1477-1490, November.
    11. Clark, William C. & Tomich, Thomas P. & Noordwijk, Meine van & Guston, David & Delia, Catacutan & Dickson, Nancy M. & McNie, Elizabeth, 2011. "Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)," Scholarly Articles 9774653, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Maria Carmen Lemos & Christine J. Kirchhoff & Vijay Ramprasad, 2012. "Narrowing the climate information usability gap," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(11), pages 789-794, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gigi Owen & Daniel B. Ferguson & Ben McMahan, 2019. "Contextualizing climate science: applying social learning systems theory to knowledge production, climate services, and use-inspired research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 151-170, November.
    2. Helka Kalliomäki & Sampo Ruoppila & Jenni Airaksinen, 2021. "It takes two to tango: Examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration [Generating Research Questions through Problematization]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 529-539.
    3. Gennaro Strazzullo & William J. Ion & Jillian MacBryde, 2022. "An Investigation of the Translational Asset: A Proposed Classification," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(4), pages 3123-3149, December.
    4. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    5. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. David Oonk, & Kaul, Mokshda & Maurer, Ben & M.A. Karwat, Darshan, 2023. "Public value mapping to assess and guide governmental investments in energy and environmental justice: Studying the United States Department of Energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Ribeiro, Barbara & Shapira, Philip, 2020. "Private and public values of innovation: A patent analysis of synthetic biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    8. Mosquera-Losada, M.R. & Santiago-Freijanes, J.J. & Rois-Díaz, M. & Moreno, G. & den Herder, M. & Aldrey-Vázquez, J.A. & Ferreiro-Domínguez, N. & Pantera, A. & Pisanelli, A. & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., 2018. "Agroforestry in Europe: A land management policy tool to combat climate change," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 603-613.
    9. Tomohiko Sakao, 2019. "Research Series Review for Transdisciplinarity Assessment—Validation with Sustainable Consumption and Production Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-22, September.
    10. de Frutos-Belizón, Jesús & García-Carbonell, Natalia & Ruíz-Martínez, Marta & Sánchez-Gardey, Gonzalo, 2023. "Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. Martin Bohle & Eduardo Marone, 2021. "Geoethics, a Branding for Sustainable Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Chris J. Barton & Qingqing Wang & Derrick M. Anderson & Drew A. Callow, 2021. "Synchronizing the Logic of Inquiry with the Logic of Action: The Case of Urban Climate Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, September.
    13. María José Foncubierta-Rodríguez & Fernando Martín-Alcázar & José Luis Perea-Vicente, 2023. "A typology of principal investigators based on their human capital: an exploratory analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 932-954, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin M�ller & Allison Stewart, 2016. "Does Temporary Geographical Proximity Predict Learning? Knowledge Dynamics in the Olympic Games," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 377-390, March.
    2. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Pablo D’Este & Oscar Llopis & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Towards an alternative framework for the evaluation of translational research initiatives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 235-243.
    3. Vesna Vlaisavljevic & Carmen Cabello Medina & Ana Pérez-Luño, 2014. "Does The Diversity Of Partners In Alliances Guarantees Innovation Performance? The Influence Of Social Capital And Knowledge Codifiability On Such Relationship," Working Papers 14.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Business Organization and Marketing (former Department of Business Administration).
    4. Tu, Jing, 2024. "Openness to international collaboration and tie strength in enhancing knowledge creation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    5. Capestro, Mauro & Rizzo, Cristian & Kliestik, Tomas & Peluso, Alessandro M. & Pino, Giovanni, 2024. "Enabling digital technologies adoption in industrial districts: The key role of trust and knowledge sharing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Leimona, Beria & Lusiana, Betha & van Noordwijk, Meine & Mulyoutami, Elok & Ekadinata, Andree & Amaruzaman, Sacha, 2015. "Boundary work: Knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 45-62.
    7. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    8. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    9. Marte C.W. Solheim & Ron Boschma & Sverre Herstad, 2018. "Related variety, unrelated variety and the novelty content of firm innovation in urban and non-urban locations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1836, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2018.
    10. Yuzhuo Cai & Borja Ramis Ferrer & Jose Luis Martinez Lastra, 2019. "Building University-Industry Co-Innovation Networks in Transnational Innovation Ecosystems: Towards a Transdisciplinary Approach of Integrating Social Sciences and Artificial Intelligence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Mário Franco & Lurdes Esteves & Margarida Rodrigues, 2024. "Clusters as a Mechanism of Sharing Knowledge and Innovation: Case Study from a Network Approach," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 25(2), pages 377-400, April.
    12. Deist, Maximilian K. & McDowell, William C. & Bouncken, Ricarda B., 2023. "Digital units and digital innovation: Balancing fluidity and stability for the Creation, Conversion, and Dissemination of sticky knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Giuseppe Calignano & Rune Dahl Fitjar, 2017. "Strengthening relationships in clusters: How effective is an indirect policy measure carried out in a peripheral technology district?," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 59(1), pages 139-169, July.
    14. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    15. Díez-Vial, Isabel & Montoro-Sánchez, Ángeles, 2016. "How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 41-52.
    16. Namgyoo Park & John Mezias & Jinju Lee & Jae-Hoon Han, 2014. "Reverse knowledge diffusion: Competitive dynamics and the knowledge seeking behavior of Korean high-tech firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 355-375, June.
    17. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    18. Riccardo Crescenzi & Luisa Gagliardi & Marco Percoco, 2013. "Social Capital and the Innovative Performance of Italian Provinces," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(4), pages 908-929, April.
    19. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Nathan, Max & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2016. "Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 177-194.
    20. Gillian L. Galford & Julie Nash & Alan K. Betts & Sam Carlson & Sarah Ford & Ann Hoogenboom & Deborah Markowitz & Andrew Nash & Elizabeth Palchak & Sarah Pears & Kristen L. Underwood, 2016. "Bridging the climate information gap: a framework for engaging knowledge brokers and decision makers in state climate assessments," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 383-395, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:4:p:884-895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.