Abstract
In the knowledge economy the evaluation of research institutions is an important element, in particular with respect to universities. Recently attention has been focused not only on the quality of research outputs (i.e. publications) but also on its external impact, i.e., the overall interaction between university and society. While the notion of impact is accepted and recognised in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, it is a source of much controversy in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Literature about research impact has often focused on technology transfer processes, marginalising social impact in favour of a strictly economic one. Therefore, this situation has probably distanced SSH from a serious reflection on these topics and on their role in so-called third mission of the university.
Moving from the current Italian experience of third mission assessment, the chapter surveys these developments and offers a number of suggestions for an assessment of SSH associated with a higher level of awareness of their impact within the policies of universities’ performances assessment. The comparison with the British assessment exercise of Research Excellence Framework could offer a significant source of reflection regarding choices associated with an evaluation process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes.
- 2.
Precursor of the current International Council for Science (ICSU).
- 3.
The fact that Bush Report was translated in Italy only in 2013 is probably an evidence of some changes.
- 4.
Workshops were an opportunity to not only meet experts from other countries (e.g., Sweden, France, the Netherlands) and international organisations (European Union, OECD), but also to talk to representatives of Italian society (local authorities, industry, journalism).
- 5.
See previous chapters in this volume for its most comprehensive description.
- 6.
The first version of the Manual (February 2015) was made public for comments on possible changes/additions, following which the current version was drafted (April 2015).
- 7.
Namely: Number of patents granted, number of accredited spinoffs, participation in incubators, participation in consortia aimed at technology transfer.
- 8.
Namely: Number of activated archaeological excavations, presence of museum centres managed or co-managed by the university, number of other third mission activities (except third-party activities).
- 9.
Introduced through Presidential decree DPR 382/1980, which allowed universities to carry out third-party research.
- 10.
As integration for data provided by institutions and collected by ANVUR, panels have also used: institutional portals, other institutional sources, data specifically requested by individual institutions, direct hearings with delegates of institutions.
- 11.
For Group B activities and third party activities of departments, only the years of 2013–2014 are considered.
- 12.
Criteria are: Outputs (65% of weight), Impact (20% of weight), Environment (15% of weight).
- 13.
Reflection proposed by Andrea Bonaccorsi at the workshop The evaluation of the third mission in the VQR 2011–2014: a comparison with universities and research institutions, organised by ANVUR (Rome, 28 June 2016).
References
ANVUR. (2013a). Autovalutazione, valutazione e accreditamento del sistema universitario italiano. www.anvur.org/attachments/article/26/documento_finale_28_01_13.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.
ANVUR. (2013b). Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca 2004–2010 (VQR 2004–2010): Rapporto finale ANVUR: Parte Prima: Statistiche e risultati di compendio. http://www.anvur.org/rapporto/. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
ANVUR. (2014). Rapporto sullo stato del sistema universitario e della ricerca 2013. http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/644/Rapporto%20ANVUR%202013_UNIVERSITA%20e%20RICERCA_integrale.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2016.
ANVUR. (2015). La valutazione della terza missione nelle Università e negli Enti di Ricerca: Manuale per la Valutazione. http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/26/Manuale%20valutazione%20terza~.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
ANVUR. (2016). VQR 2011–2014: Criteri per la valutazione delle attività di Terza Missione delle Università e degli Enti di Ricerca. http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/878/Documento%20criteri%20CETM_15~.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Basili, C. (2013). Oltre la comunicazione scientifica: riflessioni sul trasferimento della conoscenza nelle scienze umane. AIB Studi, 53(2), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-9019.
Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorization. Higher Education, 59, 567–588.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.
British Academy. (2004). “That full complement of riches”: The contributions of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the nation’s wealth. London: British Academy.
Bush, V. (1945). Science. The Endless Frontier. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.
Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian research quality framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 118, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260.
Donovan, C. (2011). State of the art in assessing research impact: Introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635918.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203–208.
European Commission. (2007). Report of the Expert Group on Humanities: Positioning Humanities Research in the 7th Framework Programme. Directorate-General for Research, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/policy_reviews/egh-report_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
European Commission. (2014). Horizon 2020 in brief: The EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation. ec.europa.eu/newsroom/horizon2020/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=4752. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
European Commission. (2015a). Commitment and Coherence: essential ingredients for success in science and innovation: Ex-Post-Evaluation of the 7th EU Framework Programme (2007–2013). http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/fp7_final_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
European Commission. (2015b). Integration of social sciences and humanities in horizon 2020: Participants, budget and disciplines. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: https://doi.org/10.2777/382488. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Garbini, R. (2010). Scendere dalle spalle dei giganti. La parabola dell’istituzione universitaria in Italia. In C. Basili (Ed.), Sinergie invisibili. Ricerca e informazione scientifica nell’Economia della conoscenza (pp. 285–306). Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.
Gascoigne, T., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Commercialisation of research activities in the humanities, arts and social sciences in Australia. Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. http://www.chass.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PAP20050501TG.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamic of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Greco, P. (2007). La terza missione dell’Università. AIM magazine, 62, 50–52.
Greco, P., & Termini, S. (2007). Contro il declino: una (modesta) proposta per un rilancio della competitività economica e dello sviluppo culturale dell’Italia. Turin: Codice.
Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Probert, J., et al. (2011). Hidden connections: Knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sector. Swindon: Arts & Humanities Research Council. http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/special-reports/specialreport-hiddenconnections.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2001). Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333–349.
Munro, E. (2016). Illuminating the practice of knowledge exchange as a ‘pathway to impact’ within an Arts and Humanities Research Council ‘creative economy knowledge exchange’ project. Geoforum, 71, 44–51.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2016). Humanities scholars’ conceptions of research quality. In M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures (pp. 43–69). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., & D’Este, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy, 43, 696–706.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14, 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214534081.
Paoloni, G. (2010). Il sistema della ricerca nell’Italia del secondo Novecento: riflessioni istituzionali e storico-politiche. In C. Basili (Ed.), Sinergie invisibili: ricerca e informazione scientifica nell’economia della conoscenza (pp. 233–262). Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche.
Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., et al. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt021.
Piazza, S., & Matteucci, M. C. (2015). Assessing the impact of research on society, economy and culture in the humanities and social sciences: A case study on a UK university campus. RT: A Journal on Research Policy & Evaluation, 3(1), 1–18. 10.13130/2282-5398/4318.
Predazzi, E. (2012). The third mission of the university. Rendiconti Fisiche Acc Lincei, 23(1), S17–S22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-012-0182-4.
RAND Corporation. (2010). Capturing research impacts: A review of international practice. http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB578.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
REF2014. (2012). Panel criteria and working methods. http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmethods/01_12_1.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Research Information Network. (2011). Reinventing research? Information practices in the humanities. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1859267. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
Scamuzzi, S. (2015). Umanisti e scienziati: ancora due culture? In S. Scamuzzi & G. Tipaldo (Eds.), Apriti scienza: Il presente e il futuro della comunicazione della scienza in Italia tra vincoli e nuove sfide (pp. 235–252). Bologna: il Mulino.
Solimine, G. (2014). Senza sapere: il costo dell’ignoranza in Italia. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Soriano, F. H., & Mulatero, F. (2010). Knowledge policy in the EU: From the Lisbon strategy to Europe 2020. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-010-0020-9.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Professor Andrea Bonaccorsi and Professor Alesia A. Zuccala for their useful comments on the first draft that greatly improved the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lanzillo, L. (2018). The Social Impact Assessment in Social Sciences and Humanities: Methodological Issues from the Italian Experience. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)