IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v33y2024ip150-7..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An openness framework for ex ante evaluation of societal impact of research

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Benneworth
  • Julia Olmos-Peñuela

Abstract

Over the last decade, the idea of societal impact resulting from publicly funded research has changed from being a relatively fringe concern related to high-technology entrepreneurship and spin-off companies to becoming an increasingly important public policy concern. This has stimulated academic science policy research to investigate the impact of research and conceptualize how knowledge created in academic contexts can be coupled to real-world problems or needs. Most of the work in this stream of research focuses on ex post impacts, that is, the impacts created by individual research activities or research strands after their completion and likewise there has been much research on ex post impact evaluation. However, ex ante impact evaluations have become increasingly important for funding decisions, but little is known about how to evaluate impact when considering research project proposals. In this article, we propose a conceptual framework to evaluate ex ante impact of research based on the idea that a research proposal is a ‘promise’ to achieve impact. We suggest that evaluators could assess social impact promises by considering two elements, namely the activities that couple their knowledge with non-academic users and the interdependency and consistency of such activities throughout the overall project proposal. We ultimately propose an analytical framework for refining our ‘openness’ conceptual framework in future empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Benneworth & Julia Olmos-Peñuela, 2024. "An openness framework for ex ante evaluation of societal impact of research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 33, pages 150-157.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:33:y:2024:i::p:150-7.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac023
    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.

    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:33:y:2024:i::p:150-7.. 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.