IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vua/wpaper/2009-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: an exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems

Author

Listed:
  • Hemert, P. van

    (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculteit der Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie (Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics Sciences, Business Administration and Economitrics)

  • Nijkamp, P.
  • Verbraak, J.

Abstract

Knowledge is gaining increasing importance in modern-day society as a factor of production and, ultimately, growth. This paper explores the dynamics in university knowledge production and its effect on the state of university-industry-policy exchange in the Netherlands. Science systems are said to be in transformation. The university has evolved from performing conventional research and education functions to serving as an innovation-promoting knowledge hub; dynamics that have received mixed reactions. Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) assume a special position, insofar that their focus seems primarily on conventional research and education functions, and not directly on (commercial) valorisation. Societal changes are, however, pressing for a reconsideration of the role of SSH. In our paper we distinguish between three important new movements that seem to affect SSH. It is believed that these movements that already have some impact today will considerably influence SSH in the future. These developments are: further differentiation, synthesis between the various sub-disciplines of SSH and natural sciences, and shifts in paradigms. The aims of this paper are twofold: 1) assess what is believed to be a most likely development of SSH by means of discovery of relevant subsets of factors influencing university knowledge production; and 2) discover whether the knowledge production factors show characteristics of a general development similarly to the ‘Mode 2’ concept introduced by Gibbons et al. (1994). By means of 22 semi-structured personal interviews with key representatives from the business, university and the policy sector, a systematic qualitative database was created. Our explanatory framework employs an artificial intelligence method, viz. rough set analysis. On the basis of these results, we find that a small minority of the respondents prefers a closer relationship of SSH with society, government and industry,

Suggested Citation

  • Hemert, P. van & Nijkamp, P. & Verbraak, J., 2009. "Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: an exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems," Serie Research Memoranda 0013, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    • Handle: RePEc:vua:wpaper:2009-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://degree.ubvu.vu.nl/repec/vua/wpaper/pdf/20090013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    3. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    4. Geenhuizen, Marina van & Nijkamp, Peter, 2005. "Death of distance and agglomeration forces of firms in the urban e-economy : an artificial intelligence approach using rough set analysis," Serie Research Memoranda 0007, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    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. Maria Ljunggren & Hans Westlund, 2013. "Professors’ attitude to collaboration and central infrastructure for collaboration: an analysis of social capital establishment within higher education institutions," Chapters, in: Tüzin Baycan (ed.), Knowledge Commercialization and Valorization in Regional Economic Development, chapter 5, pages 85-109, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.

    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. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    2. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2010. "The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 355-362, May.
    3. Mari Jose Aranguren & James Karlsen & Miren Larrea & James R. Wilson, 2013. "The development of action research processes and their impacts on socio-economic development in the Basque Country," Chapters, in: Roger Sugden & Marcela Valania & James R. Wilson (ed.), Leadership and Cooperation in Academia, chapter 14, pages 216-233, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Frank Rijnsoever & Leon Welle & Sjoerd Bakker, 2014. "Credibility and legitimacy in policy-driven innovation networks: resource dependencies and expectations in Dutch electric vehicle subsidies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 635-661, August.
    5. Sjoerd Hardeman, 2013. "Organization level research in scientometrics: a plea for an explicit pragmatic approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1175-1194, March.
    6. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    7. Atiase, Victor Yawo & Kolade, Oluwaseun & Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele, 2020. "The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa: Implications for knowledge production and value creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Carolina Cañibano & Richard Woolley & Eric J. Iversen & Sybille Hinze & Stefan Hornbostel & Jakob Tesch, 2019. "A conceptual framework for studying science research careers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1964-1992, December.
    9. Geerling-Eiff, Florentien A. & Hoes, Anne-Charlotte & Dijkshoorn-Dekker, Marijke W.C., 2017. "Triple helix networks matching knowledge demand and supply in seven Dutch horticulture Greenport regions," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 119(1), April.
    10. Ismael Rafols & Alan Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Overlay Maps of Science: a New Tool for Research Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 179, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Rocco Frondizi & Chiara Fantauzzi & Nathalie Colasanti & Gloria Fiorani, 2019. "The Evaluation of Universities’ Third Mission and Intellectual Capital: Theoretical Analysis and Application to Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, June.
    12. 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).
    13. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    14. Ivan Cucco, 2014. "Network-based policies and innovation networks in two Italian regions: a comparison through a social selection model," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(114), pages 78-96.
    15. Luis Antonio Orozco Castro, 2015. "Diversidad y heterogeneidad en redes de colaboración científica. Un estudio de las escuelas de administración de América Latina," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Administración de Empresas, edition 1, number 44, August.
    16. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    17. Thai Thi Minh & Carsten Nico Hjotrsø, 2015. "Relational dynamics in the multi-helices knowledge production system: A new institutionalism perspective," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-08, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    18. 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).
    19. A. E. Rodríguez Salazar & M. A. Domínguez-Crespo & A. M. Torres-Huerta & A. I. Licona-Aguilar & A. Nivón-Pellón & V. N. Orta-Guzmán, 2021. "Analysis of the Dynamical Capabilities into the Public Research Institutes to Their Strategic Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.

    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:vua:wpaper:2009-13. 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: R. Dam (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fewvunl.html .

    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.