IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v28y2019i2p196-201..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact”

Author

Listed:
  • Brian M Belcher
  • Luisa F Ramirez
  • Rachel Davel
  • Rachel Claus

Abstract

Hansson and Polk (2018, Research Evaluation, 27/2: 132–44) aim to assess the usefulness of the concepts of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact in transdisciplinary (TD) research. However, the article misrepresents some of the ideas in the two main reference articles. It also uses definitions of the concepts it aims to test that are inconsistent with the definitions offered by the reference papers. The methods description is insufficient to know what data were collected or how they were analyzed. More importantly, the effort to understand relationships between process and impact in TD research needs more careful definitions of the concepts outcome and impact as well as more objective ways to assess outcomes and impacts. This letter discusses shortcomings in the article and makes suggestions to improve conceptual clarity and methods for empirically assessing TD research effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian M Belcher & Luisa F Ramirez & Rachel Davel & Rachel Claus, 2019. "A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impac," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 196-201.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:2:p:196-201.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvy037
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    2. Brian M. Belcher & Katherine E. Rasmussen & Matthew R. Kemshaw & Deborah A. Zornes, 2016. "Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17.
    3. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    4. Dunn, Gemma & Laing, Matthew, 2017. "Policy-makers perspectives on credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 146-152.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2019. "Comments to Belcher et al. 2018’s critique of Hansson and Polk 2018," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 202-205.
    2. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Ramirez, Luisa F. & Belcher, Brian M., 2020. "Crossing the science-policy interface: Lessons from a research project on Brazil nut management in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    6. Stephanie Jahn & Jens Newig & Daniel J. Lang & Judith Kahle & Matthias Bergmann, 2022. "Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 343-357, April.
    7. Kristjanson, Patti & Reid, Robin & Dickson, Nancy & Clark, William C. & Vishnubhotla, Prasad & Romney, Dannie & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter & Said, Mohammed & Kaelo, Dickson & Makui, Ogeli & Nkedianye, David, 2008. "Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation: What Works?," Working Paper Series rwp08-045, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Martin Ricker, 2017. "Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1851-1855, June.
    9. Zeigermann, Ulrike & Böcher, Michael, 2020. "Challenges for bridging the gap between knowledge and governance in sustainability policy – The case of OECD ‘Focal Points’ for Policy Coherence for Development," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. Bullock Graham, 2015. "Signaling the credibility of private actors as public agents: transparency, independence, and expertise in environmental evaluations of products and companies," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 177-219, August.
    11. Jung, Jiwon & Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2017. "Impact of research collaboration cosmopolitanism on job satisfaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1863-1872.
    12. 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.
    13. Dragana Bojovic & Andria Nicodemou & Asun Lera St.Clair & Isadora Christel & Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, 2022. "Exploring the landscape of seasonal forecast provision by Global Producing Centres," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Theresa Tribaldos & Flurina Schneider, 2021. "Enabling Players to Develop Theories of Change for Sustainable Development: A Serious Game," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 52(5), pages 664-678, October.
    15. Sébastien Chailleux, 2020. "Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 733-750, June.
    16. Chung-Yen Yu & Yung-Ting Chuang & Hsi-Peng Kuan, 2017. "Understanding Faculty Collaboration and Productivity: A Case Study," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(3), pages 1-1, March.
    17. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.
    18. Gerlak, Andrea K. & Guido, Zack & Owen, Gigi & McGoffin, Mariana Sofia Rodriguez & Louder, Elena & Davies, Julia & Smith, Kelly Jay & Zimmer, Andy & Murveit, Anna M. & Meadow, Alison & Shrestha, Padme, 2023. "Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Pieter T. Boer & Geert W. J. Frederix & Talitha L. Feenstra & Pepijn Vemer, 2016. "Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(9), pages 833-845, September.
    20. Kenji Otsuka, 2022. "Co‐optation in co‐production: Maintaining credibility and legitimacy in transboundary environmental governance in East Asia," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 771-797, November.

    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:28:y:2019:i:2:p:196-201.. 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: 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.