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.

Aligning scientific impact and societal relevance: The roles of academic engagement and interdisciplinary research

52 views

Published on

Slides from presentation given at the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 2019 held in Atlanta GA, Oct 14-16, 2019

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Aligning scientific impact and societal relevance: The roles of academic engagement and interdisciplinary research

  1. 1. 2019 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 14-16 October 2019 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States ALIGNING SCIENTIFIC IMPACT AND SOCIETAL RELEVANCE: THE ROLES OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH Pablo D’Esteª, Irene Ramos-Vielbaªb, Nicolas Robinson-Garciaac, Richard Woolleyad ªIngenio (CSIC-UPV), Spain bDanish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Denmark cDelft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, The Netherlands dOSIRIS, Oslo Institute for Research on the Impact of Science
  2. 2. 2 MOTIVATIONS  The relationship between scientific impact and societal relevance ◼ Increasing pressure to demonstrate both scientific and societal impact from publicly funded research: • funding agencies • reward systems ▪ Open discussion on whether these goals are reinforcing or conflicting  Provide a conceptual and empirical approach to analyze the factors that contribute to enhance complementarities ◼ e.g. the type of research that is conducive to contributions to both theory and practice
  3. 3. 3 The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance Mutually exclusive Logics in conflict and potentially detrimental to each other Mutually reinforcing Distinct logics but potentially complementary to each other BACKGROUND I
  4. 4. 4 The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance Mutually exclusive Logics in conflict and potentially detrimental to each other Mutually reinforcing Distinct logics but potentially complementary to each other • Academics and practitioners hold irreconcilable views about what constitutes academic quality and relevant research • Styles, methods and agendas are conflicting • The pressure for immediate applicable results is incompatible with ambitious scientific research goals (Shrivastra & Mitroff, 1984; Priem & Rosenstein, 2000; Kieser & Leiner, 2009) • Academic research is unlikely to jointly satisfy the communities of science and practice: trying to reach both would imply sacrificing rigour or relevance BACKGROUND I
  5. 5. 5 The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance Mutually exclusive Logics in conflict and potentially detrimental to each other Mutually reinforcing Distinct logics but potentially complementary to each other • Academics and practitioners hold irreconcilable views about what constitutes academic quality and relevant research • Styles, methods and agendas are conflicting • The pressure for immediate applicable results is incompatible with ambitious scientific research goals (Shrivastra & Mitroff, 1984; Priem & Rosenstein, 2000; Kieser & Leiner, 2009) • When theories are sound and well-tested, they have valuable insights to offer to practice • Academics and practitioners value research that addresses fundamental challenges and is well supported by evidence • Research results are perceived as useful when jointly interpreted with practitioners (Schendel, 1991; Baldridge et al., 2004; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006) • Academic research is unlikely to jointly satisfy the communities of science and practice: trying to reach both would imply sacrificing rigour or relevance • Different perspectives are not only negotiable in the context of a particular research, but they are also susceptible to lead to greater relevance and better science BACKGROUND I
  6. 6. 6 What type of research-related factors are associated to outputs that achieve both scientific impact and societal relevance? BACKGROUND II i. Academic engagement  Involvement of scientists in research interactions with non- academic actors Productive Interactions (Spaapen & van Drooge, 2011) / Engaged Scholarship (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006) Higher Societal Relevance − Engagement improves scientists’ understanding of problems faced by practitioners − increases the perceived usefulness of research findings, by non-academic communities Higher Scientific Impact ‒ Engagement may provide insights for framing original research questions and conducting blue sky research ‒ and it contributes to build coordination mechanisms to attenuate potentially damaging effects on scientific autonomy or rigour ➢ H1: Scientists who have a greater engagement with non-academic actors in their research activities, are more likely to achieve higher levels of societal relevance and scientific impact from research results.
  7. 7. 7 What types of research-related factors are associated to outputs that achieve both scientific impact and societal relevance? BACKGROUND II ii. Interdisciplinary research (IDR)  Bringing together diverse scientific disciplines (sc. communities) IDR and scientific impact (Leahey et al. 2017; Schilling & Green, 2011) / Atypical combinations (Uzzi et al. 2013) Higher Societal Relevance − IDR favours more pluralistic perspectives in science, which are particularly well- suited to address complex social problems (Owen & Goldberg, 2010), − induces searching for legitimacy / recognition beyond the academic community: looking more directly into the world of practice (Kleinbaum, 2012) Higher Scientific Impact ‒ Accumulated experience in IDR may provide a unique source for atypical knowledge recombination and creativity ‒ and it may help building coordination mechanisms to integrate research communities with dissimilar knowledge-bases, norms and practices ➢ H2: Scientists who have a stronger involvement in interdisciplinary research approaches are more likely to achieve higher levels of societal relevance and scientific impact from research results.
  8. 8. 8 ▪ SURVEY DATA • Data from a large scale survey on Spanish scientists o Sample frame: whole population of authors affiliated to Spanish Universities, PROs and Hospitals, who have at least one article published within the period 2012-2014 (WoS): 57,406 individuals o The population covers all fields of science: e.g. STEM, BIO, HUM, SOC ... • Scientists were invited to participate in an on-line survey, June-July 2016 • Response rate: 21%: 11,992 valid responses • Respondents are representative of the target population in terms of discipline and type of organisation DATA SOURCES AND METHOD ▪ SECONDARY DATA • Publication data from Web of Science (WoS) o Number of publications published by each scientist o Number of citations received by each paper • Altmetric data - mentions in social media platforms (Altmetric.com) o Number of mentions of publications in: blogs, news and policy briefs
  9. 9. 9 0 2000400060008000 Frequency 0 2 4 6 SOCIETAL RELEVANCE (log transformed) Measures: Dependent variables (I) 1. Societal Relevance ▪ Mentions of publications from three social media platforms - blogs, news and policy briefs ▪ No of mentions to articles published in the 3-year period 2013-2015, in blogs, news and policy briefs (open citation window) / Source: altmetric.com 79% of scientists in our sample have zero publications mentioned in blogs, news or policy briefs SOCIETAL RELEVANCE: Descriptive statistics Mean Median p95 St. Dev. Min. Max 1.84 0.00 6.00 15.42 0 660
  10. 10. 10 0 200040006000 Frequency 0 1 2 3 4 5 SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (log transformed) Measures: Dependent variables (II) 2. Scientific Impact ▪ Outstanding scientific contributions (no of highly cited publications) ▪ No of articles published in the WoS in the 3-year period 2013-2015, which are among the top 10% most cited in their respective scientific fields and publication year (open-citation window) / Source: WoS 66% of scientists in our sample have zero publications among the top 10% most cited SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Descriptive statistics Mean Median p95 St. Dev. Min. Max 0.87 0.00 4.00 3.46 0 104
  11. 11. 11 Measures: Dependent variables (II) 3. Categorical variable: distinct profiles of research performance ▪ We define four categories based on the scores on the measures of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance ▪ Cutting points correspond to having at least 1 paper among the 10% most cited, or having at least 1 mention in social media platforms to articles
  12. 12. 12 Measures: Dependent variables (II) High Soc. RelevanceLow Soc. Relevance High Sc. Impact Low Sc. Impact 14%20% 59% 7% Category 1: High-High Category 2: High-Low Category 3: Low-High Category 4: Low-Low 3. Categorical variable: distinct profiles of research performance ▪ We define four categories based on the scores on the measures of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance ▪ Cutting points correspond to having at least 1 paper among the 10% most cited, or having at least 1 mention in social media platforms to articles
  13. 13. 13 Measures: Explanatory variables 1. Academic engagement ▪ No of joint research projects, R&D Contracts or Consultancy agreements, over the 3-year period 2013-2015, with non-academic org. such as: SMEs, large companies, Public Adm., Hospitals, Associations, etc ... / Source: Survey 2. Interdisciplinary Research ▪ IDR_Variety: Number of distinct disciplinary backgrounds of team members – No of disciplinary backgrounds of scientists’ research team members, selecting from a list of 51 field disciplines (matching WoS subject categories) / Source: Survey ▪ IDR_Disparity: Degree of cognitive distance between the disciplinary backgrounds of team members – We build a discipline-to-discipline matrix, where cross-citations among WoS subject categories are used to compute a similarity index for each pair of disciplines – We compute an average disparity indicator using the information of disciplinary backgrounds of the research team members: Source: Survey / WoS
  14. 14. 14 MEASURES: CONTROL VARIABLES ▪ PAST SCIENTIFIC IMPACT • Mean Normalised Citation Score (MNCS) for all the articles published before 2013. MNCS provides an average score for all publications, normalising the citation scores relative to the average citation of papers in the same field and same year of publication. ▪ PAST PUBLICATION COUNT • Number of articles published previous to 2013. ▪ SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC • age (and age squared), gender (women =1), academic status (professor = 1) ▪ APPLIED FOCUS ▪ Continuous variable measuring the extent to which the respondent has an orientation to applied vs. basic research (from 0 to 100). ▪ MOTIVATIONAL FEATURES •‘Intrinsic’ Motivation and ‘Extrinsic’ Motivation to conducting scientific research ▪ TYPE OF ORGANISATION: dummies controlling for University, PROs or other type of affiliation. ▪ SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (9 dummies:“Humanities” is the reference category)
  15. 15. 15 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)
  16. 16. 16 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table) SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) Engagement IDR-Variety IDR-Disparity IDR Variety * IDR Disparity Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Age Age Squared Gender (women) Professor Applied Orientation PROs Hospital or Others Past Nº Publications Past Scientific Impact Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)
  17. 17. 17 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table) SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038** IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043 IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059** Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137*** Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049 Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026 Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252*** Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416*** Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608*** Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)
  18. 18. 18 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table) SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038** IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043 IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059** Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137*** Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049 Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026 Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252*** Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416*** Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608*** Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)
  19. 19. 19 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table) SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038** IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043 IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059** Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137*** Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049 Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026 Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252*** Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416*** Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608*** Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)
  20. 20. 20 RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table) SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b) Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038** IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043 IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059** Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015 Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137*** Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049 Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026 Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252*** Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416*** Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608*** Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)
  21. 21. 21 Interplay between IDR-Variety and IDR-Disparity
  22. 22. 22 -1.4 -1 -.6 -.2 .2 .6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 4.2 IDR-Variety Low Disparity High Disparity SCIENTIFICIMPACT -1.4 -1 -.6 -.2 .2 .6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 4.2 IDR-Variety Low Disparity High Disparity Interplay between IDR-Variety and IDR-Disparity Societal Relevance Scientific Impact ▪ The positive relationship between spanning multiple disciplinary fields (IDR-Variety) and both societal relevance and scientific impact … is enhanced for greater levels of spanning distant fields (IDR-Disparity)
  23. 23. 23 RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance / Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low Category 1 (Joint High Performance) Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 Engagement IDR-Variety IDR-Disparity Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Age Age Squared Gender (women) Professor Applied Orientation PROs Hospital or Others Past Nº Publications Past Scientific Impact Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)
  24. 24. 24 RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance / Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low Category 1 (Joint High Performance) Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 Engagement 0.081** 0.089** 0.022 0.028 0.049 0.055 IDR-Variety 0.151*** --- 0.108** --- 0.145*** --- IDR-Disparity --- 0.142*** --- 0.101* --- 0.154*** Intrinsic Motivation 0.005 0.003 -0.014 -0.015 -0.004 -0.005 Extrinsic Motivation -0.043 -0.041 -0.005 -0.003 -0.076* -0.074* Age -0.204*** -0.207*** -0.147*** -0.149*** -0.051 -0.054 Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001 0.001 Gender (women) -0.136* -0.137* 0.033 0.033 -0.112 -0.113 Professor 0.181 0.178 0.437** 0.4536** 0.022 0.022 Applied Orientation -0.001 -0.001 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 PROs 0.550*** 0.567*** 0.217* 0.229* 0.239*** 0.256*** Hospital or Others 0.764*** 0.761*** 0.914*** 0.913*** 0.460*** 0.460*** Past Nº Publications 0.941*** 0.943*** 0.559*** 0.561*** 0.483*** 0.486*** Past Scientific Impact 1.900*** 1.905*** 1.601*** 1.609*** 0.323*** 0.327*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)
  25. 25. 25 RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance / Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low Category 1 (Joint High Performance) Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2 Engagement 0.081** 0.089** 0.022 0.028 0.049 0.055 IDR-Variety 0.151*** --- 0.108** --- 0.145*** --- IDR-Disparity --- 0.142*** --- 0.101* --- 0.154*** Intrinsic Motivation 0.005 0.003 -0.014 -0.015 -0.004 -0.005 Extrinsic Motivation -0.043 -0.041 -0.005 -0.003 -0.076* -0.074* Age -0.204*** -0.207*** -0.147*** -0.149*** -0.051 -0.054 Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001 0.001 Gender (women) -0.136* -0.137* 0.033 0.033 -0.112 -0.113 Professor 0.181 0.178 0.437** 0.4536** 0.022 0.022 Applied Orientation -0.001 -0.001 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 PROs 0.550*** 0.567*** 0.217* 0.229* 0.239*** 0.256*** Hospital or Others 0.764*** 0.761*** 0.914*** 0.913*** 0.460*** 0.460*** Past Nº Publications 0.941*** 0.943*** 0.559*** 0.561*** 0.483*** 0.486*** Past Scientific Impact 1.900*** 1.905*** 1.601*** 1.609*** 0.323*** 0.327*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)
  26. 26. 26 RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance / Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low Category 1 (Joint High Performance) Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Engagement 0.073* 0.012 0.039 IDR-Variety 0.133*** 0.108 0.119** IDR-Disparity 0.055 0.033 0.083 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity 0.089*** 0.228*** 0.261*** Intrinsic Motivation 0.004 -0.015 -0.005 Extrinsic Motivation -0.040 -0.002 -0.072* Age -0.2017*** -0.151*** -0.055 Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001 Gender (women) -0.125* 0.046 -0.099 Professor 0.195 0.453*** 0.039 Applied Orientation -0.001 0.001 -0.001 PROs 0.556*** 0.6221* 0.251*** Hospital or Others 0.760*** 0.908*** 0.454*** Past Nº Publications 0.959*** 0.581*** 0.508*** Past Scientific Impact 1.906*** 1.611*** 0.329*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)
  27. 27. 27 RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance / Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low Category 1 (Joint High Performance) Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2 Engagement 0.073* 0.012 0.039 IDR-Variety 0.133*** 0.108 0.119** IDR-Disparity 0.055 0.033 0.083 IDR Variety * IDR Disparity 0.089*** 0.228*** 0.261*** Intrinsic Motivation 0.004 -0.015 -0.005 Extrinsic Motivation -0.040 -0.002 -0.072* Age -0.2017*** -0.151*** -0.055 Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001 Gender (women) -0.125* 0.046 -0.099 Professor 0.195 0.453*** 0.039 Applied Orientation -0.001 0.001 -0.001 PROs 0.556*** 0.6221* 0.251*** Hospital or Others 0.760*** 0.908*** 0.454*** Past Nº Publications 0.959*** 0.581*** 0.508*** Past Scientific Impact 1.906*** 1.611*** 0.329*** Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)
  28. 28. Preliminary Conclusions A) We find evidence supporting the “uneasy” relationship between scientific impact and societal relevance ▪ High Scientific Impact is not directly associated with scoring high in Societal Relevance ▪ Diverse profiles • Results suggests that there is a high heterogeneity of profiles regarding research performance • There is little evidence to claim that the logics underlying scientific impact and societal relevance are SYSTEMATICALLY: • “detrimental” or • “reinforcing” to each other
  29. 29. Preliminary Conclusions B) We argue that conflicts connected with reaching both academic and non- academic audiences can be mitigated ▪ We find that Academic Engagement and Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is associated with the capacity to jointly reach societal relevance and scientific impact from public science ➢ Engagement (joint & contract research) mobilises bidirectional flows of knowledge o enhancing mutual awareness of gains from research results o and facilitating alignment of research incentives and goals ➢ IDR (spanning multiple and disparate fields of science) enhances access to dissimilar sources of knowledge o favoring the capacity to integrate know-why and know-how o and the capacity to exploit the complementarities of bringing together a plurality of perspectives in research activities
  30. 30. Thanks for your attention!!! Nicolas Robinson-Garcia elrobinster@gmail.com INGENIO [CSIC-UPV] Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación | Edif 8E 4º Camino de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia tel +34 963 877 048 fax +34 963 877 991

×