IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i3p384-400..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Olmos-Peñuela
  • Paul Benneworth
  • Elena Castro-Martínez

Abstract

There is a reasonably settled consensus within the innovation community that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research is more ‘useful’ to societies than other types of research, notably social sciences and humanities (SSH) research. Our paper questions this assumption, and seeks to empirically test whether STEM researchers’ practices make their research more useful than that of SSH researchers. A critical reading of the discussion around SSH research supports developing a taxonomy of differences. This is tested using a database of 1,583 researchers from the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Results do not support the view that SSH research is less useful than STEM research, even if differences are found in the nature of both transfer practices and their research users. The assumption that STEM research is more useful than SSH research needs revision if research policy is to properly focus on research which is useful for society.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Olmos-Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2014. "Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 384-400.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:384-400.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct071
    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. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    2. Julia Olmos Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro-Martínez, 2018. "Does usable research face higher obstacles within the academy?," CHEPS Working Papers 201805, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    3. Amara, Nabil & Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio, 2019. "Overcoming the “lost before translation” problem: An exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 22-36.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:384-400.. 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/spp .

    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.