Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Promoting Innovation, and Assessing Impact and Value

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research

Abstract

Recent decades have seen changes in the relationship between the state, higher education and university-based research. Questions are asked about the purpose and focus of research, the social role of research, and correspondingly the appropriate governance models. Concepts of “public good” and “public value” have moved centre stage. How they are defined and by whom remains a matter of ongoing tension between and within the scientific community, government and civil society. Once research is seen to have value and impact beyond the academy, there are implications for the organisation and management of research at national and institutional levels. This chapter traces some of the interventions which have influenced the impact agenda, including a discussion of innovation. It looks at how debates about impact and public value have affected and changed research practice, with particular focus on arts and humanities research. Drawing on international examples, it reflects on different policy responses to research assessment, and the public responsibility of research and researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42, 408–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anders, G. (2015, August 17). That ‘useless’ liberal arts degree has become tech’s hottest ticket. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/ 2015/07/29/liberal-arts-degree-tech/#6271f3965a75. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • AUBR. (2009). Assessing Europe’s university-based research. Brussels: DG Research. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/assessing-europe-university-based-research_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

  • Bakhshi, H., Schneider, P., & Walker, C. (2008). Arts and humanities research and innovation. Bristol: Arts and Humanities Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bate, J. (Ed.) (2011). The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore, E. (2014). ‘Impact’, ‘value’ and ‘bad economics’: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2007). Rethinking the social impacts of the arts. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, P. (2011, May 31). Why should humanities researchers be in universities anyway. Heravalue Blog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., Cremonini, L., Jongbloed, B., Leisyte, L., Vossensteyn, H. & de Weert, E. (2011). Quality-related funding, performance agreements and profiling in higher education. In Universiteit Twente, Enschede. Centre for: Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, M. (2007). Modelling experiential knowledge for research. In M. Mäkelä & S. Routarinne (Eds.), The art of research: Research practices in art and design. University of Art and Design: Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., et al. (2009). Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS One, 4(3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1).11–20. http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/boyer-1996.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2016.

  • Brewer, J. D. (2013). The public value of the social sciences: An interpretive essay. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bric, M. J. (1999). The Humanities and the Social Sciences: A Case for a Research Council. A Report to the Minister for Education and Science. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Academy. (2007). Peer review: The challenges for the humanities and social sciences: A British academy report. London: The British Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2011, April 11). The sciences vs. the humanities: A power struggle. Chronicle of Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. (2006). The university and the public good. Thesis Eleven, 84(7), 7–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996). Rise of the network society, The information age: Economy, society and culture. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • CFIR – Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11153&page=2. Accessed 31 July 2009.

  • Chenail, R. (2008). But is it research? A review of Patricia Leavy’s method meets art: Arts-based research practice. The Weekly Qualitative Report, 1(2), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen, D., & Pegram, T. (2015). Wanted: A third generation of global governance research. Governance, 28(4), 417–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences. (2013). The heart of the matter. The humanities and social sciences for a vibrant, competitive, secure nation. Cambridge, MA. http://www.humanitiescommission.org/_pdf/hss_report.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

  • Committee on Quality Indicators in the Humanities. (2011). Quality indicators for research in the humanities. Humanities. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP2015-2021.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

  • Corbett, A. (2005). Universities and the Europe of knowledge. In Ideas, institutions and policy entrepreneurship in Europe union higher education policy, 1955–2005. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbyn, Z., & Fearn, H. (2008, September 18). Humanities overlooked by politicians. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/humanities-overlooked-by-politicians/403618.article. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

  • Crossick, G. (2006). Knowledge transfer without widgets: The challenge of the creative economy. Lecture to the Royal Society of Arts, Leeds. http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/warden/creative-economy.pdf

  • Dahler-Larsen, P. (2007). Evaluation and public management. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, R. (2010). Constructing universities’ responses to Europe’s Lisbon agenda: The roles of the European commission in creating the Europe of knowledge. Research paper 19. London: Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies, Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, C.N., & Goldberg, D.T. (2004). A Manifesto for the humanities in a technological age. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://uchri.org/media/pdfs/Manifesto_Humanities.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., Lemmens-Krug, K., & Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Report for the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Enschede: Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2005). Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delanty, G. (2001). The university in the knowledge society. Organization, 8(2), 149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D. (1998). Evaluating the ‘Evaluative State’: Implications for research in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33, 361–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (2010). Reflections and conclusions. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality. Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 313–335). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, C. (2008). Feasibility study: The evaluation and benchmarking of humanities research in Europe. Humanities in the European Research Area (HERA). http://www.heranet.info/system/files/hera_report_-_evaluation_and_benchmarking_of_humanities_research_in_europe.pdf.

  • Donovan, D., & Hanney, S. (2011). The ‘payback framework’ explained. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 181–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, J. (2016). The quest for quality and the role, impact and influence of Supra-National Organizations. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.). Global rankings and the geo-politics of higher education understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policymakers and society. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESF. (2012). The challenges of impact assessment: A report by the ESF MO forum on evaluation of publicly funded research – Working group 2: Impact assessment. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/zahlen_fakten/programm_evaluation/impact_assessment_wg2.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Andover, UK: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Schuler, E., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2000). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. In M. Jacobs & T. Hellström (Eds.), The future of knowledge production in the academy. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2003). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Communication to the council and the European Parliament. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2005). “Communication from the Commission to the European Council. Implementing the renewed partnership for growth and jobs. Developing a knowledge flagship: The European Institute of Technology”, COM/2006/0077 final. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, research and innovation. Communication to the council and the European Parliament. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2007). Council resolution on modernising universities for Europe’s competitiveness in a global knowledge economy. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2010). Europe 2020 flagship initiative. Innovation union. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Europa. (2011). Supporting growth and jobs – An agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, The council, The European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). Research meets diplomacy: Europe as a global actor. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Executive Office of the President. (1987, November 20). A research and development strategy for high performance computing. Office of science and technology policy, US Government. http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/bluebooks/1994/section.2.1.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forfás. (2012). Report of research prioritization steering group. Dublin: Forfás. because as assessment simply captured assessment-driven hyperactivity process. Knowledge by benchmarked s this approach albeit it.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forskningsradet. (2015). Research for innovation and sustainability. Strategy for the research council of Norway, 2015–2020. Oslo: Research Council of Norway. http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Article/Main_strategy/1193731376993. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (2011). The ten generations of American higher education. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century. Social, political and economic changes (3rd ed., pp. 37–68). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., (2002). “Engagement as a Core Value in a Mode 2 Society”, in Bjarnason, S. & P. Coldstream (Eds.). The Idea of Engagement. Universities in Society, London: Association of Commonwealth Universities, 48–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (Eds.) (2016). The Civic University: The policy and leadership challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., Maassen, P., Olsen, J. P., & Stensaker, B. (2007). ‘Europe of knowledge’: Search for a new pact. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J., Brutscher, P.-B., Kirk, S. E., Butler, L., & Wooding, S. (2010). Capturing Research Impacts: A review of international practice. Cambridge: RAND http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2010/RAND_DB578.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grierson, E., & Brearley, L. (2009). Creative arts research: Narratives of methodologies and practices. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Kristian Birkelands spøkelse: Universitetet i Oslo og innovasjon. In P. Anker, M. Gulbrandsen, E. Larsen, J. W. Løvhaug, & B. S. Tranøy (Eds.), Universitetet i Oslo: Samtidshistoriske perspektiver (pp. 275–366). Oslo: UniPub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Aanstad, S. (2015). Is innovation a useful concept for arts and humanities research? Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gumport, P. J., & Jennings, J. D. (2005). Toward the development of liberal arts indicators. In M. Richardson (Ed.), Tracking changes in the humanities. Essays on finance and education (pp. 113–166). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science. Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H., & Keniston, K. (1994). Introduction: The social contract for science. In D. H. Guston & K. Keniston (Eds.), The fragile contract. University science and the federal government (pp. 1–41). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (2011). Competitors of rankings: New directions in quality assurance and accountability. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings. Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2012). European ‘transparency instruments’: Driving the modernisation of European higher education. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlăsceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna process and national reforms (Vol. 1, pp. 339–360). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2013). Higher education’s future: A new global order? In R. Pritchard & J. E. Karlsen (Eds.), Resilient universities (pp. 53–90). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2014). “Making an impact: New directions for arts and humanities research”, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 25–44. http://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214533891

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of hieher Education: The battle for World Class excellence (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E., & Ryan, M. (2013). The impact of university rankings on higher education policy in Europe: A challenge to perceived wisdom and a stimulus for change. In P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, & J. Brennan (Eds.), The globalization challenge for European higher education: Convergence and diversity, centres and peripheries (pp. 79–100). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E., Ryan, M., Gibson, A., & Ward, E. (2013). Recognising the value of the arts and humanities in a time of Austerity. Ireland report for the HERAVALUE Project. HEPRU Working Paper Series No. 1, Dublin: Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin Institute of Technology. http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=cserrep. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • HRB. (2008). Making an impact–The economic and social benefits of HRB-funded research. Dublin: Health Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A., Kitson, M., & Probert, J. (2011). Hidden connections: Knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors. Cambridge: CEBR/Bristol: Arts & Humanities Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICSTI – Interdepartmental Committee on Science, Technology and Innovation. (2015). Innovation 2020. Excellence, talent, impact. Ireland’s strategy for research and development, science and technology. Dublin: Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRC. (2015). Submission to the consultation on a new national strategy for science, technology and innovation. Dublin: Irish Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaschik, S. (2014, January 31). Obama vs. Art history, inside higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/31/obama-becomes-latest-politician-criticize-liberal-arts-discipline#sthash.YPVvHhvt.otMBWLGw.dpbs. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, V. L., van Vught, F. A., de Weert, E., & Goedegebuure, L. (Eds.) (1994). Higher education policy: An international comparative perspective. Oxford: International Association of Universities and Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kings College London & Digital Science. (2015). The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF). 2014 impact case studies King’s. London: HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/Analysis,of,REF,impact/Analysis_of_REF_impact.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Larsen, M.-T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40, 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavis, F. R. (1962). Two cultures? The significance of C. P. Snow, reprinted in Leavis, F. R, (2013). Two cultures? The significance of C.P. Snow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitz, J. & Belkin, D. (2013). “Humanities Fall from Favor”. The Wall Street Journal, 6 June, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324069104578527642373232184

  • Lisbon European Council. (2000). Presidency conclusions, March 23 and 24. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund Declaration. (2009, July 8). Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time. Swedish EU Presidency. Lund, Sweden. http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.8460!menu/standard/file/lund_declaration_final_version_9_july.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2015.

  • Lundvall, B. A. (Ed.) (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2011). “Higher education and public good”. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00496.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state. Debunking private vs. public sector myths. New York: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2004). Gifts of the muse. Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Metris-No. (2012). New SSH policy developments. Metris Report for Norway. http://www.metrisnet.eu/metris/index.cfm/report/findByStructureAnd Country/28/81. Accessed 26 Apr 2014.

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2012, October 25–26). Towards a policy, public and university consensus on humanities’ public value. Keynote Presentation to HERAVALUE conference, Measuring the Public Value of Arts and Humanities Research: From theoretical challenges and practical problems towards a policy, public and university consensus, Dublin Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2015). Research governance and the role of evaluation: A comparative study. American Journal of Evaluation, 14, 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan Jones, M., Castle-Clarke, S., Manville, C., Gunashekar, S., & Grant, J. (2013). Assessing research impact. An international review of the excellence in innovation for Australia trial. Cambridge: RAND Europe. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR278.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Morris, W. (1886). The aims of art. In: L. Archie & J.G. Archie. (2006). Readings in the history of aesthetics: An open-source reader, v. 0.11 chapter 19. http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/artbook.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Morton, S. (2015). “Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach”, Research Evaluation, 24(4), 405–419. http://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv016

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D.C. & Sampat, B.N. (2005a). “The Bayh-Dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments?” In: A. N. Link & F. M. Scherer (eds.). Essays in honor of Edwin Mansfield: The economics of R&D, innovation, and technological change. Boston: Springer US, 233–245 http://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25022-0_18

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005b). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, A. (2016). Normative Isomorphism: Is Irish academic work-life the same in different institutional types in the universal phase of higher education? PhD Thesis, Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki, A. (2013). Measuring excellence in social sciences and humanities: Limitations and opportunities. In T. Erkkilä (Ed.), Global university rankings. challenges for European higher education (pp. 147–165). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, 31, 1467–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (2006). “Redefining the social contract”, Higher Education Policy, 19(3), 269–286. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300130

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NIH. (2010). STAR METRICS: New way to measure the impact of federally funded research. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/star-metrics-new-way-measure-impact-federally-funded-research. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSTC – National Science and Technology Council. (1993). Science in the public interest. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OSTP/Science/html/Sitni_Home.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Nurse, P. (2015). Ensuring a successful UK research endeavour. London: BIS. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478125/BIS-15-625-ensuring-a-successful-UK-research-endeavour.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, R. (2011). Making the case for the role of arts, humanities and social sciences. Dublin: Presentation to HERAVALUE seminar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oancea, A. (2016, February 3). Research impacts: networks and narratives. Presentation at the Launch of the Centre for Global Higher Education, UCL Institute of Education, London. http://www.researchcghe.org/researchers-reveal-future-challenges-for-global-higher-education. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • OECD. (1984). Industry and university: New forms of co-operation and communication. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/1913021.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Competitive cities in the global economy. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2015. Innovation for growth and society. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olmos-Penuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2014). “Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value”, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14, 61–78. http://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214534081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, O. (1997). The first universities: Studium Generale and the Origins of University Education in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard business review, November–December, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAE (2001, 2008). Research Assessment Exercisse, UK. http://www.rae.ac.uk/2001/; http://www.rae.ac.uk

  • Readings, B. (1996). The university in Ruins. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • REF (2014). Research Excellence Framework, UK. http://www.ref.ac.uk

  • RIA. (2011). The appropriateness of key performance indicators to research in arts and humanities disciplines: Ireland’s contribution to the European debate. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2000). Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of Knowledge production. In M. Jacob & T. Hellström (Eds.), The future of knowledge production in the academy (pp. 28–39). Maidenhead: Open University and SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23, 323–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruark, J. (2011, March 29). Defenders of the humanities look for new ways to explain their value. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Defenders-of-the-Humanities/126930/. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Schwartz, D. R. (2013, December 7). Why study the arts and the humanities? Huffpost College. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-r-schwarz/why-study-the-arts-and-th_b_4059078.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • SEP. (2015). Standard evaluation protocol, 2015–2021. Protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands. Voorburg: VSNU, KNAW, NWO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. (2014). Retheorizing academic capitalism: Actors, mechanism, fields, and networks. In B. Cantwell & I. Kauppinen (Eds.), Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (pp. 10–32). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism. In Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2015). Manifesto for the humanities. Transforming doctoral education in good enough times. Anne Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1961). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. The Rede lecture 1959. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaapen, J. Dijstelbloem, H. & Wamelink, F. (2007). Evaluating research in context. A method for comprehensive assessment. The Hague: Consultative Committee of the Sector Councils for Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewicz, R. (1986). Academics and entrepreneurs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thune, T., Aamodt, P.-O., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Noder i kunnskapsnettverket: Forskning, kunnskapsoverføring og eksternt samarbeid blant vitenskapelig ansatte i UH-sektoren. Report 23/2014. Oslo: NIFU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2016, February 5). Are world university rankings up to date? University World News. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160202143021671. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Tinkler, J. (2008). Maximising the social, policy and economic impacts of the humanities and social sciences. Report to British Academy from LSE Public Policy Group, London. http://www.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/LSEPublicPolicy/pdf/Maximizing%20the%20impacts%20of%20HSS%20research,%20Research%20Report,corrected%20Final%20Version,%20July%202008.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

  • Trow, M. (1974). Problems of the transition from elite to mass higher education. Reprinted in Burrage, M. (Ed). Martin Trow. Twentieth-century higher education. From elite to mass to universal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, P. (2011). The higher education policy context of evaluative practices. In M. Saunders, P. Trowler, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Reconceptualising evaluation in higher education. The practice turn (pp. 18–32). Maidenhead: Open University and SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watermeyer, R. (2012). Issues in the articulation of “impact”: The responses of UK academics to “impact” as a new measure of research assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), 1–19. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (1963). Culture and society, 1780–1950. Middlesex: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kaine, R., Kerridge, S., Thewell, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J., & Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Paul Benneworth

  2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Magnus Gulbrandsen

  3. Higher Education Policy Research Unit, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland

    Ellen Hazelkorn

Authors
  1. Paul Benneworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Magnus Gulbrandsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ellen Hazelkorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Benneworth, P., Gulbrandsen, M., Hazelkorn, E. (2016). Promoting Innovation, and Assessing Impact and Value. In: The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40899-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation