IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v30y2021i2p179-190..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding collaborative interactions in relation to research impact in social sciences and humanities: A meta-ethnography

Author

Listed:
  • Alexis Dewaele
  • Kristof Vandael
  • Stefan Meysman
  • Ann Buysse

Abstract

The number and type of collaborations between researchers and stakeholders has increased significantly. This responds to the demand from policymakers, funders, and citizens that researchers should help to tackle important social issues (e.g. climate change, healthy aging). However, there is little knowledge about how collaboration processes are experienced, how we can theoretically conceptualize them, and how in this way we can develop efficient collaboration methods that contribute to solving urgent societal problems. In this meta-ethnography, we gathered relevant knowledge from carefully selected qualitative studies. A title/abstract analysis of 3422 articles from Web of Science and ProQuest led to the interpretative analysis of qualitative data from eight publications. The results of this study show that despite the need for a better understanding of complex collaborative interactions, the differences (or asymmetry) between organizations to which various partners belong hinder efficient collaboration. Bridging figures (brokers) can play an essential role if they succeed in drawing diverse stakeholders out of their organizational context into a new dimension that allows creativity and mutual understanding, but that also allows conflict and distortion. In ideal circumstances, this leads to a quasi-automatic transfer of knowledge between partners that takes place naturally and in both directions (knowledge diffusion).

Suggested Citation

  • Alexis Dewaele & Kristof Vandael & Stefan Meysman & Ann Buysse, 2021. "Understanding collaborative interactions in relation to research impact in social sciences and humanities: A meta-ethnography," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 179-190.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:30:y:2021:i:2:p:179-190.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaa033
    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. Steve Connelly & Dave Vanderhoven & Robert Rutherfoord & Liz Richardson & Peter Matthews, 2021. "Translating research for policy: the importance of equivalence, function, and loyalty," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Dotti, Nicola Francesco & Walczyk, Julia, 2022. "What is the societal impact of university research? A policy-oriented review to map approaches, identify monitoring methods and success factors," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    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:30:y:2021:i:2:p:179-190.. 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.