IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i1p92-111..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The plurality and contexts of research quality notions

Author

Listed:
  • Liv Langfeldt
  • Kody James Steffy

Abstract

Whereas research quality is a key concern in research policy, it is often handled as unitary and rarely interrogated. This paper explores variations in what researchers perceive to characterize the research they value the highest and aims to understand the different sites where research quality notions are formed. Based on a large researcher survey, we find both commonalities and differences across disciplines. Notions appear to vary systematically by researcher’s organizational type, their interaction with clients and practitioners, and their reliance on outside infrastructure and multidisciplinary research. For example, those affiliated with research institutes are more prone than those at universities to value societal impact as a characteristic of the best research. In conclusion, quality notions appear to reflect a multitude of organizational sites, and disciplines account for only part of the variation. Hence, a more nuanced understanding of the plurality and origins of research quality notions is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Liv Langfeldt & Kody James Steffy, 2025. "The plurality and contexts of research quality notions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 92-111.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:92-111.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae066
    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:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:92-111.. 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.