IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i1p61-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan P L de Jong
  • Pleun van Arensbergen
  • Floortje Daemen
  • Barend van der Meulen
  • Peter van den Besselaar

Abstract

Science is increasingly heterogeneous, posing new questions for research evaluation. How can we evaluate the between scientific and societal quality of research, taking into account differences between research fields and between research groups? In this paper we present the findings of two case studies in fields where societal and scholarly output of research are highly intertwined (architecture and law). We analyze the nature of the two fields in terms of research areas and specific aspects of knowledge dynamics. This results in an approach and indicators for contextual research evaluation. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan P L de Jong & Pleun van Arensbergen & Floortje Daemen & Barend van der Meulen & Peter van den Besselaar, 2011. "Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 61-72, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:61-72
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X12941371876346
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pleun Arensbergen & Inge van der Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2012. "Gender differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 857-868, December.
    2. Eileen Piggot-Irvine & Deborah Zornes, 2016. "Developing a Framework for Research Evaluation in Complex Contexts Such as Action Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    3. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    4. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Luca Secondi, 2017. "The determinants of research performance in European universities: a large scale multilevel analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1147-1178, September.
    5. Cian O’Donovan & Aleksandra (Ola) Michalec & Joshua R Moon, 2022. "Capabilities for transdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 145-158.
    6. Blanca L. Díaz Mariño & Frida Carmina Caballero-Rico & Ramón Ventura Roque Hernández & José Alberto Ramírez de León & Daniel Alejandro González-Bandala, 2021. "Towards the Construction of Productive Interactions for Social Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    7. Maaike Verbree & Edwin Horlings & Peter Groenewegen & Inge Weijden & Peter Besselaar, 2015. "Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 25-49, January.
    8. K. Jonkers & G. E. Derrick & C. Lopez-Illescas & P. Besselaar, 2014. "Measuring the scientific impact of e-research infrastructures: a citation based approach?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1179-1194, November.
    9. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    10. Mirjana Pejić Bach & Cristina M. Pulido & Dalia Suša Vugec & Vladia Ionescu & Gisela Redondo-Sama & Laura Ruiz-Eugenio, 2020. "Fostering Social Project Impact with Twitter: Current Usage and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, August.
    11. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Filippo Chiarello & Gualtiero Fantoni, 2021. "Impact for whom? Mapping the users of public research with lexicon-based text mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1745-1774, February.
    12. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban, 2022. "How universities influence societal impact practices: Academics’ sense-making of organizational impact strategies [Between Relevance and Excellence? Research Impact Agenda and the Production of Pol," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 609-620.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:1:p:61-72. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.