Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Open Science monitoring and
the notion of research impact
Marc Vanholsbeeck, Ph.D.
Director, Directorate of Scientific Res...
Open Science and research impact
••• Open Science and Impact as boundary objects
• “Boundary Object” (Star and Griesemer, 1989)
– Common structure across “...
••• Framing of impact (1)
• Impact as dissemination of research
• Impact as effects of research:
–scientific impact
–impac...
••• Framing of impact (2)
• Impact as “extraordinary impact” vs.
manifold and mundane types of impact
(Sivertsen, 2017)
• ...
••• Pathways to impact creation (1)
• Impact as « productive interaction » (Spaapen
& Van Drooge, 2011)
“Exchanges between...
••• Pathways to impact creation (2)
• From direct instrumental impact to indirect
conceptual impact (King’s College London...
••• Open Science in the creation of impact
beyond academia (1)
• Open access to knowledge ≠ discoverable
information
• Dis...
••• Open Science in the creation of impact
beyond academia (3)
Monitoring of Open Science
••• Open Science monitoring 
• Monitoring of
– Open Science related policies and initiatives
– Costs implied by those poli...
••• Monitoring OS related policies and
initiatives_ERA Roadmap 5th priority (1)
• Methodology
– ERA SWG Open Science and I...
• Preliminary quantitative results
– 11 MSs completed the form
– 128 actions in total
– 53 actions concern exclusively OS ...
••• Indicators of Open Science uptake (1)
• Open Science Monitor
••• Indicators of Open Science uptake (2)
• ERA Progress Report 2018
– Share of publications available in open access (hea...
••• Monitoring Open Science impact (1)
• Bibliometrics and peer review for scientific
impact
• Economic metrics for econom...
••• Monitoring Open Science Impact (2)
Model of « World Class Research University »
Model of « Open University »
Scientifi...
“We need to start by asking: what science
communication model or paradigm can be
considered a suitable one for humanity?”
...
••• Bibliography (1)
Bayley, J., Phipps, D., Batac, M., & Stevens, E. (2018). Development of a framework
for knowledge mob...
••• Bibliography (2)
Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Penuela, J. (2019). From productive
interactions to impact pathw...
•••
20190527_Marc Vanholsbeeck_Open Science monitoring and the notion of research impact
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

20190527_Marc Vanholsbeeck_Open Science monitoring and the notion of research impact

235 views

Published on

Presented by Marc Vanholsbeeck, Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles

during the OpenAIRE workshop "Research policy monitoring in the era of Open Science and Big Data" taking place in Ghent, Belgium on May 27th and 28th 2019

Day 1: Monitoring and Infrastructure for Open Science

https://www.openaire.eu/research-policy-monitoring-in-the-era-of-open-science-and-big-data-the-what-indicators-and-the-how-infrastructures

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

20190527_Marc Vanholsbeeck_Open Science monitoring and the notion of research impact

  1. 1. Open Science monitoring and the notion of research impact Marc Vanholsbeeck, Ph.D. Director, Directorate of Scientific Research Ministry of Wallonia-Brussels Federation, Lecturer in Science Communication Université Libre de Bruxelles
  2. 2. Open Science and research impact
  3. 3. ••• Open Science and Impact as boundary objects • “Boundary Object” (Star and Griesemer, 1989) – Common structure across “social worlds” – Community-specific conceptualizations • Hence better to avoid any “one size fits all” approach in the implementation of OS policies and the “impact agenda”
  4. 4. ••• Framing of impact (1) • Impact as dissemination of research • Impact as effects of research: –scientific impact –impact beyond academia: • direct economic effects (income from licenses, patents, spin-offs) (Benneworth, 2014) • broader cultural, societal, health, environmental and political effects
  5. 5. ••• Framing of impact (2) • Impact as “extraordinary impact” vs. manifold and mundane types of impact (Sivertsen, 2017) • Impact as the changes we can demonstrate, measure and capture (Bayley, Phipps, Batac & Stevens, 2018)
  6. 6. ••• Pathways to impact creation (1) • Impact as « productive interaction » (Spaapen & Van Drooge, 2011) “Exchanges between researchers and stakeholders in which knowledge is produced and valued that is both scientifically robust and socially relevant; Mediated through various ‘tracks’ (a research publication, an exhibition, a design, people or financial support); Productive when it leads to efforts by stakeholders to somehow use or apply research results or practical information or experiences.”
  7. 7. ••• Pathways to impact creation (2) • From direct instrumental impact to indirect conceptual impact (King’s College London & Digital Science, 2015) • From linear (Caplan, 1977) to non-linear: – Co-creation of impact with societal stakeholders (Gronvad et al., 2017) – Reacting to or driving societal changes (Muhonen et al. 2010)
  8. 8. ••• Open Science in the creation of impact beyond academia (1) • Open access to knowledge ≠ discoverable information • Discoverable information ≠ efficient communication • Need of knowledge brokers and/or skills in science communication
  9. 9. ••• Open Science in the creation of impact beyond academia (3)
  10. 10. Monitoring of Open Science
  11. 11. ••• Open Science monitoring  • Monitoring of – Open Science related policies and initiatives – Costs implied by those policies and initiatives – Uptake of the policies and initiatives – Impact of Open Science on science and beyond academia
  12. 12. ••• Monitoring OS related policies and initiatives_ERA Roadmap 5th priority (1) • Methodology – ERA SWG Open Science and Innovation – All Member States HR, LU, SK + CH, IS, MD, NO and TR Has any activity for this action taken place? YES NO Was the action delayed? YES NO YES NO Is the action stopped? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Terminated Results On- Going with Delay Finished Results On Track Cancelled Postponed till Cancelled Scheduled for (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
  13. 13. • Preliminary quantitative results – 11 MSs completed the form – 128 actions in total – 53 actions concern exclusively OS (and not OI or KT) – 33 actions involve OI (exclusively or in combination with OS and/or KT) – 53 actions on track – 30 finished with results – only 2 cancelled ••• Monitoring OS related policies and initiatives_ERA Roadmap 5th priority (2)
  14. 14. ••• Indicators of Open Science uptake (1) • Open Science Monitor
  15. 15. ••• Indicators of Open Science uptake (2) • ERA Progress Report 2018 – Share of publications available in open access (headline indicator) – Share RFOs’ (i.e. members of Science Europe or other important sources of national funding) publications that are available in OA – Share of life sciences papers to which a country contributed and that have at least one open dataset in Figshare • CWTS Leiden ranking 2019 (Van Leeuwen et al. 2019) – Share of publications available in open access
  16. 16. ••• Monitoring Open Science impact (1) • Bibliometrics and peer review for scientific impact • Economic metrics for economic impact • Altmetrics to measure impact beyond academia? (Miedema et al., 2018)
  17. 17. ••• Monitoring Open Science Impact (2) Model of « World Class Research University » Model of « Open University » Scientific impact: citations to articles in international top journals Impact beyond academia Major publishers and providers of « information analytics » Scopus Web of Science Providers of altmetrics
  18. 18. “We need to start by asking: what science communication model or paradigm can be considered a suitable one for humanity?” Arianna Becerril-García, Chair of AmeliCA (*) *https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/05/the -oa-interviews-arianna-becerril.html
  19. 19. ••• Bibliography (1) Bayley, J., Phipps, D., Batac, M., & Stevens, E. (2018). Development of a framework for knowledge mobilisation and impact competencies. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. Benneworth, P. (2014). 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 1474022214533888, first published on May 14, 2014 as doi:10.1177/1474022214533888. Caplan, N. (1977). The use of social research knowledge at the national level. Social Research in Public Policymaking,183 – 197. Gronvad, J., Hvidtfeldt, R., & Pedersen, D.B. (2017). Analysing co-creation in theory and in practice – A systemic review of the SSH impact literature. Retrieved fromhttps://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/35d470_78a9168f52d347de9ea1c8b2999882 6a.pdf?index=true King’s College London, & Digital Science (2015). “The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studie”. Research Report 2015/01. Miedema, F., Mayer, K., Holmberg, K., & Leonelli, S. (2018). Mutual Learning Exercise: Open Science — Altmetrics and Rewards. file:///C:/Users/vanhma01/Downloads/MLE%20OS_Final%20Report_0%20(4).pdf
  20. 20. ••• Bibliography (2) Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Penuela, J. (2019). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact, Research Evaluation, rvz003. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003 Sivertsen, G. (2017). Frameworks for understanding the societal relevance of the humanities. Paper presented to RESSH2017 - Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities, Antwerpen, 6th7th July 2017. Spaapen, J., & Van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. SSH research societal impact. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420. Tennant ,J.P., Crane, H., Crick, T., Davila J., Enkhbayar, A., Havemann, J., Kramer, B., Martin, R., Masuzzo, P., Nobes, A., Rice, C., López, B.R., Ross-Hellauer, T., Sattler, S., Thacker, P., Vanholsbeeck, M. (2019). Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing. Publications, 7, 34. doi:10.3390/publications7020034 Van Leeuwen, T., Costas, R., & Robinson-Garcia N. (2019). Indicators of open access publishing in the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2019. https://www.cwts.nl/blog?article=n- r2w2a4.
  21. 21. •••

×