Search

Over the past two decades, several methods have been developed to evaluate the societal impact of research. Compared to the practical development of the field, the conceptual development is relatively weak. This review article contributes to the latter by elucidating the theoretical aspects of the dominant methods for evaluating societal impact of research, in particular, their presuppositions about the relationship between scientific and societal value of research. We analyse 10 approaches to the assessment of the societal impact of research from a constructivist perspective. The methods represent different understandings of knowledge exchange, which can be understood in terms of linear, cyclical, and co-production models. In addition, the evaluation methods use a variety of concepts for the societal value of research, which suggest different relationships with scientific value. While some methods rely on a clear and explicit distinction between the two types of value, other methods, in particular Evaluative Inquiry, ASIRPA, Contribution Mapping, Public Value Mapping, and SIAMPI, consider the mechanisms for producing societal value integral to the research process. We conclude that evaluation methods must balance between demarcating societal value as a separate performance indicator for practical purposes and doing justice to the (constructivist) science studies' findings about the integration of scientific and societal value of research. Our analytic comparison of assessment methods can assist research evaluators in the conscious and responsible selection of an approach that fits with the object under evaluation. As evaluation actively shapes knowledge production, it is important not to use oversimplified concepts of societal value.

Strategic research consortia as policy instruments for research coordination have been on the rise for more than a decade. Despite their rising popularity as coordination structures, there has been little comparative analysis of the actual coordination approaches such consortia develop. In order to enhance our understanding of consortia as coordination structures, this paper makes a systematic and in-depth comparison of the coordination approaches of two Dutch consortia. The analysis shows that research consortia coordinate their activities in very different ways. A consortium’s coordination approach turns out to be strongly influenced by its internal characteristics. The observed influence of internal consortium characteristics implies that the eventual coordination approach of consortia will not always match the rationale behind a policy measure to support these consortia. We recommend policy-makers to foster strategic research consortia with a heterogeneous composition that have organised sufficient flexibility for reacting to unforeseen developments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper reflects on the relevance of academic science. Relevance plays a central role in what we define as the 'contract' between (academic) science and society. The manifestations of relevance in the daily practice of academic research can be studied using the credibility cycle. Together, the science--society contract and the credibility cycle enable a systematic analysis of relevance in scientific disciplines. This is illustrated with a case study of academic chemistry in The Netherlands. We conclude that science's search for relevance is not new, but that its meaning changes together with changing ideas about the potential benefits of scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]