Exploring research impact models: A systematic scoping review

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Research Evaluation Pub Date : 2021-08-14 DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvab009
Maryam Razmgir, Sirous Panahi, L. Ghalichi, S. Mousavi, Shahram Sedghi
{"title":"Exploring research impact models: A systematic scoping review","authors":"Maryam Razmgir, Sirous Panahi, L. Ghalichi, S. Mousavi, Shahram Sedghi","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvab009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article explores the models and frameworks developed on “research impact’. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of related literature through scoping study method. The present research investigates the nature, objectives, approaches, and other main attributes of the research impact models. It examines to analyze and classify models based on their characteristics. Forty-seven studies and 10 reviews published between 1996 and 2020 were included in the analysis. The majority of models were developed for the impact assessment and evaluation purposes. We identified three approaches in the models, namely outcome-based, process-based, and those utilized both of them, among which the outcome-based approach was the most frequently used by impact models and evaluation was considered as the main objective of this group. The process-based ones were mainly adapted from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model and were potentially eligible for impact improvement. We highlighted the scope of processes and other specific features for the recent models. Given the benefits of the process-based approach in enhancing and accelerating the research impact, it is important to consider such approach in the development of impact models. Effective interaction between researchers and stakeholders, knowledge translation, and evidence synthesis are the other possible driving forces contributing to achieve and improve impact.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab009","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

This article explores the models and frameworks developed on “research impact’. We aim to provide a comprehensive overview of related literature through scoping study method. The present research investigates the nature, objectives, approaches, and other main attributes of the research impact models. It examines to analyze and classify models based on their characteristics. Forty-seven studies and 10 reviews published between 1996 and 2020 were included in the analysis. The majority of models were developed for the impact assessment and evaluation purposes. We identified three approaches in the models, namely outcome-based, process-based, and those utilized both of them, among which the outcome-based approach was the most frequently used by impact models and evaluation was considered as the main objective of this group. The process-based ones were mainly adapted from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation logic model and were potentially eligible for impact improvement. We highlighted the scope of processes and other specific features for the recent models. Given the benefits of the process-based approach in enhancing and accelerating the research impact, it is important to consider such approach in the development of impact models. Effective interaction between researchers and stakeholders, knowledge translation, and evidence synthesis are the other possible driving forces contributing to achieve and improve impact.
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
探索研究影响模型:系统的范围评估
本文探讨了关于“研究影响”的模型和框架。我们的目的是通过范围研究的方法提供一个全面的文献综述。本研究探讨了研究影响模型的性质、目标、方法和其他主要属性。它根据模型的特征对其进行分析和分类。该分析包括了1996年至2020年间发表的47项研究和10篇综述。大多数模型是为影响评估和评价目的而开发的。我们在模型中确定了三种方法,即基于结果的方法,基于过程的方法,以及两者同时使用的方法,其中基于结果的方法是影响模型最常用的方法,评估被认为是该组的主要目标。基于过程的模型主要改编自W.K. Kellogg基金会的逻辑模型,并且可能符合影响改进的条件。我们强调了最新模型的流程范围和其他特定特性。鉴于基于过程的方法在增强和加速研究影响方面的好处,在开发影响模型时考虑这种方法是很重要的。研究人员与利益相关者之间的有效互动、知识转化和证据综合是有助于实现和改善影响的其他可能驱动力。
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