IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v31y2022i1p118-131..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety

Author

Listed:
  • Ole Henning Sørensen
  • Jakob Bjørner
  • Andreas Holtermann
  • Johnny Dyreborg
  • Jorid Birkelund Sørli
  • Jesper Kristiansen
  • Steffen Bohni Nielsen

Abstract

Research funders and policymakers increasingly focus on societal benefits of their investments in research. Research institutions thus face increasing pressure to demonstrate their societal impact to prove their legitimacy and worth. To this end, research institutions need reliable, quantitative methods to measure societal impact. This article describes the development and test of an instrument to quantitatively measure societal impact of applied research at research institution and program levels. It demonstrates the successful validation of the instrument in the multi-disciplinary field of occupational health and safety. The instrument, the Societal Impact Instrument: Occupational Health and Safety Research (SII:OHSR), produces an aggregate measure of societal impact for the research institution as a whole and subscales for each research program. The SII:OHSR instrument is built on a process model of knowledge translation and exchange. It has been developed in the context of multi-disciplinary occupational health and safety research. The instrument is constructed as a generalized and context-independent tool that can be relocated to other research domains and languages. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first singular instrument that quantitatively measures societal impact. It is therefore highly pertinent for the research evaluation field.

Suggested Citation

  • Ole Henning Sørensen & Jakob Bjørner & Andreas Holtermann & Johnny Dyreborg & Jorid Birkelund Sørli & Jesper Kristiansen & Steffen Bohni Nielsen, 2022. "Measuring societal impact of research—Developing and validating an impact instrument for occupational health and safety," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 118-131.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:1:p:118-131.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab036
    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. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Puay Tang & Susie Morrow, 2000. "Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 171-182, December.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Gerlind Wallon & Anna Ledin, 2008. "Is the h index related to (standard) bibliometric measures and to the assessments by peers? An investigation of the h index by using molecular life sciences data," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 149-156, June.
    3. David Budtz Pedersen & Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad & Rolf Hvidtfeldt, 2020. "Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 4-21.
    4. Pablo D’Este & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "How do researchers generate scientific and societal impacts? Toward an analytical and operational framework," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 752-763.
    5. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    6. Emanuela Reale & Dragana Avramov & Kubra Canhial & Claire Donovan & Ramon Flecha & Poul Holm & Charles Larkin & Benedetto Lepori & Judith Mosoni-Fried & Esther Oliver & Emilia Primeri & Lidia Puigvert, 2018. "A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 298-308.
    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. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:371-383. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.

    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. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    2. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    5. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
    6. David Barberá-Tomás & Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Pablo D’Este, 2022. "Dynamic perspectives on technology transfer: introduction to the special section," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1299-1307, October.
    7. Lin Zhang & Gunnar Sivertsen & Huiying Du & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8861-8886, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Kalpana Shankar, 2021. "Does the inclusion of non-academic reviewers make any difference for grant impact panels? [Understanding the Long Term Impact of the Framework Programme, European Policy Evaluation Consortium (EPEC," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 763-775.
    10. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    11. Marra, Mita, 2022. "Productive interactions in digital training partnerships: Lessons learned for regional development and university societal impact assessment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Václav Linkov & Kieran O’Doherty & Eunsoo Choi & Gyuseog Han, 2021. "Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    13. Bührer, Susanne & Feidenheimer, Alexander & Walz, Rainer & Lindner, Ralf & Beckert, Bernd & Wallwaey, Elisa, 2022. "Concepts and methods to measure societal impacts: An overview," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 74, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    14. Pandey, Poonam & Pansera, Mario, 2020. "Bringing Laxmi and Saraswati together: Nano-scientists and academic entrepreneurship in India," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Chams, Nour & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, Jose M. & Molins, Mireia & Cubel, Rosa, 2021. "Between “Research Producers” and “Research Adopters”: The Role of Knowledge and Innovation Transfer on Sustainability Impact," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315264, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.
    17. Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Nataliia Sokolovska & Alex Fenton & Stefan Hornbostel & Gert G. Wagner, 2021. "Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations," RatSWD Working Papers 276, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    18. Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Castro-Martínez, Elena & D’Este, Pablo, 2014. "Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 696-706.
    19. 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).
    20. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.

    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:31:y:2022:i:1:p:118-131.. 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.