Methodological Foundations of Assessing Research Impact in Business and Management

• Autorzy: Tadeusz A. Grzeszczyk
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Motivation: Assessment of research impact in the business and management field is more difficult than in the case of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines and, therefore, it is justified to improve the approaches, methods and tools used in this field and social sciences in general. Methodological research concerning such assessment is quite a challenge as it is not easy to identify useful assessment methods, indicators and evaluation criteria for carrying out objective processes for conceptualizing and measuring research impact. Creating conditions for obtaining reliable results of research impact assessment is accompanied by the growing interest of scientists and public institutions sponsoring their study. Aim: The article aims to indicate the current main methodological trends in assessing the impact of research in business and management. Results: The paper presents the results of bibliometric research enabling the identification of leading study centers and main methodological solutions, which may be a source of progress in the field of research on systems and methods of research impact assessment in business and management. This is especially important for the scientific community and public sponsors from countries that are currently starting to implement impact assessment systems. It is worth drawing from the experience, good practices and vast resources of knowledge related to evaluation systems and models of knowledge exchange between academia and non-academic stakeholders.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Research methodology; Scientific research; Research centres; Bibliometric analysis

PL

Metodologia badań; Badania naukowe; Ośrodki naukowo-badawcze; Analiza bibliometryczna

• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Prawo
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 21
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 403--417

Twórcy

autor

Tadeusz A. Grzeszczyk

• Warsaw University of Technology

Bibliografia

• Benneworth, P. (2015) Tracing how arts and humanities research translates, circulates and consolidates in society: how have scholars been reacting to diverse impact and public value agendas. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1) 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214533888.
• Bonaccorsi, A., Chiarello, F., & Fantoni, G. (2021a). SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab008.
• Bonaccorsi, A., Melluso, N., Chiarello, F., & Fantoni, G. (2021b) The credibility of research impact statements: a new analysis of REF with semantic hypergraphs. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab008.
• Davenport, J. (2013). Technology transfer, knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange in the historical context of innovation theory and practice. In The Knowledge Exchange: an Interactive Conference (pp. 1-6). Lancaster University.
• Grant, J., Brutscher, P.C., Kirk, S.E., Butler, L., & Wooding, S. (2010). Capturing research impacts: a review of international practice. Retrieved 17.03. 2021 from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2010/RAND_DB578.pdf.
• Grzeszczyk, T.A. (2018). Mixed intelligent systems: developing models for project management and evaluation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91158-8.
• Grzeszczyk, T.A., & Waszkiewicz, M. (2020). Sustainable investment project evaluation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(3), 2363-2381. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(60).
• Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2008). Measuring public value 2: practical approaches. Retrieved 17.03.2021 from https://www.tavinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tavistock_Report_Measuring_Public_value_2_Practical_Approaches_2006.pdf.
• Hourneaux Junior, F., & Sandes-Guimaraes, L. (2020). Editorial. RAUSP Management Journal, 55(4), 427-433. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-10-2020-227.
• Hughes, T., Webber, D., & O'Regan, N. (2019). Achieving wider impact in business and management: analysing the case studies from REF 2014. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 628-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1393059.
• Johnson, M. T., Johnson, L. J., Bayliss-Brown, G. A., Danino, V., Day, S., Dunnett, I., Forster, J., Lorenzoni, I., Kennedy, K., Malin, G., Moore, K., Moore Fuller, P., Walton, M., & Tolhurst, T.J. (2020) The marine knowledge exchange network: insights from an innovative regional-to-national scale academic-led knowledge-to-impact network and recommendations for future initiatives. Coastal Management, 48(4), 308-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1781513.
• Martin, B.R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the "impact agenda": are we creating a Frankenstein monster. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247-254. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635693.
• Maythorne, L. (2019). Knowledge exchange as impact. In K. Fenby-Hulse, E. Heywood, & K. Walker (Eds.), Research impact and the early career researcher: lived experiences, new perspectives (pp. 61-74). Routledge.
• Meagher, L.R., & Martin, U. (2017). Slightly dirty maths: the richly textured mechanisms of impact. Research Evaluation, 26(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw024.
• Moed, H.F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988-2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23314.
• Morgan Jones, M., Manville, C., & Chataway, J. (2017). Learning from the UK's research impact assessment exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9608-6.
• Morgan, B. (2014). Research impact: income for outcome. Nature, 511(7510), S72-S75. https://doi.org/10.1038/511S72a.
• Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Penuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003.
• Olsson, A., & Meek, L. (Eds.). (2013). Effectiveness of Research and Innovation Management at Policy and Institutional Levels: Cambidia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. Retrieved 17.03.2021 from https://www.oecd.org/sti/Effectiveness%20of%20research%20and%20innovation%20management%20at%20policy%20and%20institutional%20levels_Meek%20and%20Olsson.pdf.
• Penfield, T., Baker, M.J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M.C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: a review. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021.
• Petersohn, S., & Heinze, T. (2018). Professionalization of bibliometric research assessment: insights from the history of the Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 565-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx084.
• Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, Ch., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., Primeri, E., Puigvert, L., Scharnhorst, A., Schubert, A., Soler, M., Soòs, S., Sordé, T., Travis, Ch., & van Horik, R. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025.
• Reed, M.S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., & Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: a methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104147.
• Samuel, G.N., & Derrick, G.E. (2015). Societal impact evaluation: exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 229-241. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv007.
• Schuetzenmeister, F. (2010). University research management: an exploratory literature review. Institute of European Studies Working Paper Series, qt77p3j2hr, 1-32.
• Torrance, H. (2020). The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: processes, consequences, and incentives to engage. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(7), 771-779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419878748.
• Watermeyer, R. (2012). From engagement to impact: articulating the public value of academic research. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(2), 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.641578.
• Williams, K., & Grant, J. (2018). A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx042.
• Wróblewska, M.N. (2021). Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, 58. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2022.022