IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i6p749-751..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introduction to a special section: Balancing scientific and societal impact—A challenging agenda for academic research

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Ramos-Vielba
  • Pablo D’Este
  • Richard Woolley
  • Nabil Amara

Abstract

There is an increasing social expectation regarding the joint realisation of scientific and societal impact from publicly funded research. Achieving this goal involves facing important challenges, which affect individual researchers, research performing organisations, and the science governance system as a whole. This special section includes conceptual, methodological, and empirical papers that aim to contribute to the building of an improved appreciation of the factors and dynamics shaping the intertwined quest for scientific quality and societal impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Ramos-Vielba & Pablo D’Este & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "Introduction to a special section: Balancing scientific and societal impact—A challenging agenda for academic research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 749-751.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:6:p:749-751.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy033
    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. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    2. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    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. Jason A. Hubbart, 2023. "Harmonizing Science and Society: A Change Management Approach to Align Scientific Endeavors with Societal Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-13, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Jonna Brenninkmeijer, 2022. "Achieving societal and academic impacts of research: A comparison of networks, values, and strategies [University Research Funding and Publication Performance - an International Comparison]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 728-738.
    4. Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal & Heidrun Åm, 2023. "Making sense of transdisciplinarity: Interpreting science policy in a biotechnology centre," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 219-229.
    5. Jappe, Arlette, 2023. "Mergers between universities and governmental research organizations in the Netherlands and Denmark. Institutional platforms for agricultural transformations," SocArXiv 35kfa, Center for Open Science.

    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. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Flying the nest: How the home department shapes researchers’ career paths," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201409, University of Turin.
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Olmos Peñuela,Julia & Benneworth,Paul & Castro-Martínez,Elena, 2014. "Explaining researchersâ readiness to incorporate external stimuli in their research agendas," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201408, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    4. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    5. Hsing-fen Lee & Marcela Miozzo, 2015. "How does working on university–industry collaborative projects affect science and engineering doctorates’ careers? Evidence from a UK research-based university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 293-317, April.
    6. Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2022. "What is behind multiple institutional affiliations in academia?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 382-402.
    7. 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.
    8. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    9. Linda H. M. van de Burgwal & Ana Dias & Eric Claassen, 2019. "Incentives for knowledge valorisation: a European benchmark," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 1-20, February.
    10. Uwe Cantner & Philip Doerr & Maximilian Goethner & Matthias Huegel & Martin Kalthaus, 2024. "A procedural perspective on academic spin-off creation: the changing relative importance of the academic and the commercial sphere," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1555-1590, April.
    11. Clarysse, Bart & Andries, Petra & Boone, Sarah & Roelandt, Jolien, 2023. "Institutional logics and founders' identity orientation: Why academic entrepreneurs aspire lower venture growth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    12. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    13. 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).
    14. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    15. Rajeev Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2013. "Nascent entrepreneurship and inventive activity: a somewhat new perspective," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 471-485, August.
    16. Carolin Haeussler & Henry Sauermann, 2016. "The Division of Labor in Teams: A Conceptual Framework and Application to Collaborations in Science," NBER Working Papers 22241, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Ener, Hakan, 2022. "How does CEO technical expertise influence licensing-out at technology ventures?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    18. Jonek-Kowalska, Izabela & Musioł-Urbańczyk, Anna & Podgórska, Marzena & Wolny, Maciej, 2021. "Does motivation matter in evaluation of research institutions? Evidence from Polish public universities," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    20. Anna Potekhina & Knut Blind, 2020. "What motivates the engineers to patent? A study at the Chinese R&D laboratories of a European MNC," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 461-480, April.

    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:45:y:2018:i:6:p:749-751.. 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/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.