Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - a literature review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

This article explores the current literature on 'research impact' in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we seek to examine key methods and frameworks used to assess research impact. We take a systemic look at the impact agenda within the social sciences and humanities by examining key methodological components used in research impact frameworks discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Artikelnummer4
TidsskriftResearch Evaluation
Sider (fra-til)1-27
Antal sider27
ISSN0958-2029
StatusAccepteret/In press - 2019

Citer dette

@article{5e513133eb2046898badc7d6eb977fae,
title = "Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - a literature review",
abstract = "This article explores the current literature on 'research impact' in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we seek to examine key methods and frameworks used to assess research impact. We take a systemic look at the impact agenda within the social sciences and humanities by examining key methodological components used in research impact frameworks discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics",
author = "Pedersen, {David Budtz} and Gr{\o}nvad, {Jonas F{\o}lsgaard} and Rolf Hvidtfeldt",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
pages = "1--27",
journal = "Research Evaluation",
issn = "0958-2029",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities - a literature review

AU - Pedersen, David Budtz

AU - Grønvad, Jonas Følsgaard

AU - Hvidtfeldt, Rolf

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - This article explores the current literature on 'research impact' in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we seek to examine key methods and frameworks used to assess research impact. We take a systemic look at the impact agenda within the social sciences and humanities by examining key methodological components used in research impact frameworks discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics

AB - This article explores the current literature on 'research impact' in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). By providing a comprehensive review of available literature, drawing on national and international experiences, we seek to examine key methods and frameworks used to assess research impact. We take a systemic look at the impact agenda within the social sciences and humanities by examining key methodological components used in research impact frameworks discussing advantages and disadvantages of each method. The study finds that research impact is a highly complex and contested concept in in the SSH literature. Drawing on the strong methodological pluralism emerging in the literature, we conclude that there is considerable room for researchers, universities and funding agencies to establish impact assessment tools directed towards specific missions while avoiding catch-all indicators and universal metrics

M3 - Journal article

SP - 1

EP - 27

JO - Research Evaluation

JF - Research Evaluation

SN - 0958-2029

M1 - 4

ER -