SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Research Evaluation Pub Date : 2021-03-02 DOI:10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB008
A. Bonaccorsi, F. Chiarello, G. Fantoni
{"title":"SSH researchers make an impact differently. Looking at public research from the perspective of users","authors":"A. Bonaccorsi, F. Chiarello, G. Fantoni","doi":"10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n With the rise of the impact assessment revolution, governments and public opinion have started to ask researchers to give evidence of their impact outside the traditional audiences, i.e. students and researchers. There is a mismatch between the request to demonstrate the impact and the current methodologies for impact assessment. This mismatch is particularly worrisome for the research in Social Sciences and Humanities. This paper gives a contribution by examining systematically a key element of impact, i.e. the social groups that are directly or indirectly affected by the results of research. We use a Text mining approach applied to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) collection of 6,637 impact case studies in order to identify social groups mentioned by researchers. Differently from previous studies, we employ a lexicon of user groups that includes 76,857 entries, which saturates the semantic field, permits the identification of all users and opens the way to normalization. We then develop three new metrics measuring Frequency, Diversity and Specificity of user expressions. We find that Social Sciences and Humanities exhibit a distinctive structure with respect to frequency and specificity of users.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB008","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

With the rise of the impact assessment revolution, governments and public opinion have started to ask researchers to give evidence of their impact outside the traditional audiences, i.e. students and researchers. There is a mismatch between the request to demonstrate the impact and the current methodologies for impact assessment. This mismatch is particularly worrisome for the research in Social Sciences and Humanities. This paper gives a contribution by examining systematically a key element of impact, i.e. the social groups that are directly or indirectly affected by the results of research. We use a Text mining approach applied to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) collection of 6,637 impact case studies in order to identify social groups mentioned by researchers. Differently from previous studies, we employ a lexicon of user groups that includes 76,857 entries, which saturates the semantic field, permits the identification of all users and opens the way to normalization. We then develop three new metrics measuring Frequency, Diversity and Specificity of user expressions. We find that Social Sciences and Humanities exhibit a distinctive structure with respect to frequency and specificity of users.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SSH研究人员产生了不同的影响。从用户的角度看公共研究
随着影响评估革命的兴起,政府和公众舆论开始要求研究人员在传统受众(即学生和研究人员)之外提供其影响的证据。证明影响的要求与目前的影响评估方法之间存在不匹配。这种不匹配尤其令人担忧的是社会科学和人文科学的研究。本文通过系统地检查影响的关键因素,即直接或间接受研究结果影响的社会群体,做出了贡献。我们使用了一种文本挖掘方法,应用于研究卓越框架(REF)中6637个影响案例研究的集合,以确定研究人员提到的社会群体。与以前的研究不同,我们使用了包含76,857个条目的用户组词典,这使语义域饱和,允许识别所有用户,并为规范化开辟了道路。然后,我们开发了三个衡量用户表达频率、多样性和特异性的新指标。我们发现社会科学和人文学科在用户的频率和特异性方面表现出独特的结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Methods for measuring social and conceptual dimensions of convergence science Correction to: Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach A tribute to our dearly departed colleague and friend: An introduction to the Special Issue in memory of Prof. Paul Benneworth The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy The conflict of impact for early career researchers planning for a future in the academy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1