IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i3p591-602..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research impact seen from the user side

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Woolley
  • Jordi Molas-Gallart

Abstract

Impact assessment research has developed theory-based approaches to trace the societal impact of scientific research. Impact assessment typically starts from the perspective of a research investment, organization, or project. Research users, non-academic actors involved in knowledge production, translation, and application, are well represented in many of these approaches. Researcher users are usually positioned as contributors to research, recipients of research outputs, or beneficiaries of research-driven outcomes. This paper argues that impact assessment would benefit from a more comprehensive understanding and analysis of research valorization processes from the user perspective. The first half of the paper reviews key impact assessment literature to identify how research users are positioned and portrayed in relation to valorization processes. In the second half of the paper, we use the results of this review to propose a set of principles to guide a systematic approach to constructing user perspectives on research impact. We suggest four concepts for operationalization of this approach. The paper concludes that the addition of a more comprehensive research user perspective on research valorization would complement and enhance existing impact assessment approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Woolley & Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2023. "Research impact seen from the user side," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 591-602.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:3:p:591-602.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvad027
    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. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    3. Stefan de Jong & Katharine Barker & Deborah Cox & Thordis Sveinsdottir & Peter Van den Besselaar, 2014. "Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 89-102.
    4. Barbara Befani & John Mayne, 2014. "Process Tracing and Contribution Analysis: A Combined Approach to Generative Causal Inference for Impact Evaluation," IDS Bulletin, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(6), pages 17-36, November.
    5. Bozeman, Barry & Rogers, Juan D., 2002. "A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 769-794, July.
    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. Richard Woolley & Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2024. "Research impact seen from the user side," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 591-602.
    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. Sarah Seus & Susanne Bührer, 2022. "The evaluation of the Austrian START programme: an impact analysis of a research funding programme using a multi-method approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 673-698, June.
    4. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    5. 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.
    6. Silje Maria Tellmann & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2022. "The other side of the boundary: Productive interactions seen from the policy side [Rethinking Policy ‘Impact’: Four Models of Research-Policy Relations]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 621-631.
    7. 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.
    8. Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Woolley, Richard, 2022. "Research impact seen from the user side," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 202201, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    9. 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.
    10. Pierre Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stephane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: issues, methods and challenges," Working Papers hal-01431457, HAL.
    11. Bozeman, Barry & Youtie, Jan, 2017. "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1398.
    12. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    13. 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.
    14. Espinoza, Héctor & Kling, Gerhard & McGroarty, Frank & O'Mahony, Mary & Ziouvelou, Xenia, 2020. "Estimating the impact of the Internet of Things on productivity in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 116391, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    16. Eleanor Fisher & Jeremy D. Holland, 2003. "Social development as knowledge building: research as a sphere of policy influence," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 911-924.
    17. Bozeman, Barry & Mangematin, Vincent, 2004. "Editor's introduction: building and deploying scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 565-568, May.
    18. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    19. Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    20. Nathalie Taverdet-Popiolek, 2022. "Economic Footprint of a Large French Research and Technology Organisation in Europe: Deciphering a Simplified Model and Appraising the Results," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 44-69, March.

    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:32:y:2023:i:3:p:591-602.. 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.