- -

Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

dc.contributor.author Olmos-Peñuela, Julia es_ES
dc.contributor.author Benneworth, Paul es_ES
dc.contributor.author Castro-Martínez, Elena es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2020-09-15T03:32:36Z
dc.date.available 2020-09-15T03:32:36Z
dc.date.issued 2016-12 es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/150049
dc.description.abstract [EN] Science policy increasingly focuses on maximising societal benefits from science and technology investments, but often reduces those benefits to activities involving codifying and selling knowledge, thereby idealising best practice academic behaviours around entrepreneurial superstars. This paper argues that societal value depends on knowledge being used, making knowledge¿s eventual exploitation partly dependent upon on whether other users¿societal or scientific¿can use that knowledge (i.e. on how far new knowledge is cognate with users¿ existing knowledge). When scientists incorporate user knowledge into their research processes, what we call `open research behaviours¿, their knowledge may be more usable. We develop a set of hypotheses concerning whether researchers¿ personal and professional characteristics are associated with open research behaviours. We find evidence which suggests that, whilst personal characteristics are not associated with open research behaviours, researchers who experience professional signals validating open research behaviours are more likely to demonstrate such behaviours. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship The authors acknowledge the EU-SPRI Forum for the PhD Circulation grant provided to Julia Olmos-Penuela and to CHEPS as her host institution, and to the Conselleria d'Educacio, Cultura i Esport (Ref. APOSTD-2014-A-006) for the post-doctoral grant provided to Julia Olmos-Penuela. The authors acknowledge the CSIC and other IMPACTO project researchers (INGENIO and IESA) for their hard and very satisfactory work and the CSIC researchers whose answers to the questionnaire enabled us to develop the database. The authors would also like to thank Barend van der Meulen, the Rathenau Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands, for a comment on a presentation that inspired this paper, as well as to Laurens Hessels for his correspondence on the issue of research dynamism. es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Oxford University Press es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof Science and Public Policy (Online) es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Research structures es_ES
dc.subject Hybrid scientific governance es_ES
dc.subject Research micro-practices es_ES
dc.subject Open research behaviours es_ES
dc.subject Openness es_ES
dc.subject Ccientists characteristics es_ES
dc.subject.classification ORGANIZACION DE EMPRESAS es_ES
dc.title Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1093/scipol/scw016 es_ES
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/GVA//APOSTD%2F2014%2FA%2F006/ es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento - Institut de Gestió de la Innovació i del Coneixement es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2016). Does it take two to tango? Factors related to the ease of societal uptake of scientific knowledge. Science and Public Policy (Online). 43(6):751-762. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw016 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw016 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 751 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 762 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 43 es_ES
dc.description.issue 6 es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn 1471-5430 es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela S\325258 es_ES
dc.contributor.funder Generalitat Valenciana es_ES
dc.description.references Adviesraad-voor-Wetenschaps (2007) ‘Alfa en Gamma stralen.Valorisatiebeleid voor de Alfa- en Gammawetenschappen’. Rijswijk, the Netherlands: Adviesraad voor Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid. es_ES
dc.description.references Amin A. Cohendet P. (2004) Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities. Oxford, UK: OUP. es_ES
dc.description.references Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2007). To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics, 70(2), 333-354. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0206-5 es_ES
dc.description.references Bate J. (2011) The Public Value of the Humanities. London: Bloomsbury. es_ES
dc.description.references Bateman T. S. Hess A. M. (2015) ‘Different personal propensities among scientists relate to deeper vs. broader knowledge contributions’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 3653–3658. es_ES
dc.description.references Becher T. Trowler P. R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Behrens, T. R., & Gray, D. O. (2001). Unintended consequences of cooperative research: impact of industry sponsorship on climate for academic freedom and other graduate student outcome. Research Policy, 30(2), 179-199. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00112-2 es_ES
dc.description.references Benner, C. (2003). Learning Communities in a Learning Region: The Soft Infrastructure of Cross-Firm Learning Networks in Silicon Valley. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(10), 1809-1830. doi:10.1068/a35238 es_ES
dc.description.references Benneworth, P. (2015). 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, 14(1), 45-60. doi:10.1177/1474022214533888 es_ES
dc.description.references Benneworth P. Olmos-Peñuela J. (2014) ‘Resolving tensions of research utilization: The value of a usability-based approach’: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series. Valencia: INGENIO. es_ES
dc.description.references Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320887 es_ES
dc.description.references Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4-5), 627-655. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00093-1 es_ES
dc.description.references Bozeman, B. (2002). Public‐Value Failure: When Efficient Markets May Not Do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145-161. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00165 es_ES
dc.description.references Bozeman B. (2012) ‘Public values concepts and criteria: The case for “progressive opportunity” as a criterion’. Paper prepared for Creating Public Values Conference, held 20–22 September 2012, Minneapolis, MN < http://www.leadership.umn.edu/documents/Bozeman6.4.12wtitlepage.pdf> accessed 23 Mar 2015. es_ES
dc.description.references Brewer J. D. (2013) The Public Value of the Social Sciences: An Interpretive Essay. London: Bloomsbury. es_ES
dc.description.references Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2010). The engaged university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139-157. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6 es_ES
dc.description.references Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (2012) ‘Memoria anual del CSIC 2011’. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas <http://documenta.wi.csic.es/alfresco/downloadpublic/direct/workspace/SpacesStore/81d3f71c-819c-4787-9147-8c18b2d64fcb/CSIC_MEMORIA_2011_alta.pdf> accessed 17 Sep 2013. es_ES
dc.description.references Crossick G . (2009) ‘So who now believes in the transfer of widgets?’ Paper presented at Knowledge Future Conference, held 16–7 October 2009, London <http://www.london.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/about/vicechancellor/Knowledge_transfer_without_widgets.pdf> accessed 20 Nov 2011. es_ES
dc.description.references Dance, A. (2013). Impact: Pack a punch. Nature, 502(7471), 397-398. doi:10.1038/nj7471-397a es_ES
dc.description.references D’Este P. Llopis O. Yegros A. (2013) ‘Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research’: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series. Valencia: INGENIO. es_ES
dc.description.references D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z es_ES
dc.description.references Donovan, C. (2007). The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 585-597. doi:10.3152/030234207x256538 es_ES
dc.description.references Elam, M., & Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(2), 233-251. doi:10.1177/1368431003006002005 es_ES
dc.description.references Fromhold-Eisebith M. Werker C. Vojnic M. (2014) ‘Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks’ in The Social Dynamics of Innovation Networks, Rutten R. Benneworth P. Irawati D. Boekema F. (eds), pp. 221–39. London: Routledge. es_ES
dc.description.references Garland, R. (2012). The humanities: plain and simple. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(3), 300-312. doi:10.1177/1474022212438754 es_ES
dc.description.references Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University‐industry collaboration: a CoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 625-647. doi:10.1108/13673271111151992 es_ES
dc.description.references Gibbons M. Limoges C. Nowotny H. Schwartzman S. . (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. es_ES
dc.description.references Gulbrandsen M. (2012) ‘“But Peter’s in it for the money”–the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists’. TIK Working Papers on Innovation Studies, No. 20120323 <http://www.sv.uio.no/tik/InnoWP/Gulbrandsen%2020120323. pdf> accessed 20 Mar 2015. es_ES
dc.description.references Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.004 es_ES
dc.description.references Hanney S. R. Gonzalez-Block M. A. Buxton M. J. Kogan M. (2003) ‘The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment’. Health Research Policy and Systems <http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/pdf/1478-4505-1-2.pdf> accessed 11 Feb 2016. es_ES
dc.description.references Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740-760. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008 es_ES
dc.description.references Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2010). Different Modes of Innovation and the Challenge of Connecting Universities and Industry: Case Studies of Two Regional Industries in Norway. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1993-2008. doi:10.1080/09654313.2010.516523 es_ES
dc.description.references Jacobson, N., Butterill, D., & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers’ Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246-259. doi:10.1177/1075547003262038 es_ES
dc.description.references Kitcher P. (2003) ‘What kinds of science should be done?’ in Living with the Genie: Essays on Technology and the Quest for Human Mastery Lightman A. Sarewitz D. Desser C. (eds), pp. 201–24. Washington, DC: Island Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354-1368. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002 es_ES
dc.description.references Latour B. Woolgar S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage. es_ES
dc.description.references Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843-863. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00857-8 es_ES
dc.description.references Lee, Y. S. (2000). The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133. doi:10.1023/a:1007895322042 es_ES
dc.description.references Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty Entrepreneurs and Research Productivity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173-194. doi:10.1007/s10961-006-9014-y es_ES
dc.description.references Nowotny H. Scott P. Gibbons M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Argentina: SciELO. es_ES
dc.description.references O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011 es_ES
dc.description.references Olmos-Penuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2013). Are «STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus»?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy, 41(3), 384-400. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct071 es_ES
dc.description.references Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 61-78. doi:10.1177/1474022214534081 es_ES
dc.description.references Olmos-Peñuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an ‘Openness’ Approach. Minerva, 53(4), 381-410. doi:10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4 es_ES
dc.description.references Ramos-Vielba, I., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., & Woolley, R. (2015). Scientific research groups’ cooperation with firms and government agencies: motivations and barriers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 558-585. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9429-4 es_ES
dc.description.references Rhoten, D., & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56-75. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001 es_ES
dc.description.references Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy, 39(3), 422-434. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004 es_ES
dc.description.references Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509-532. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00091-3 es_ES
dc.description.references Sarewitz, D., & Pielke, R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 5-16. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001 es_ES
dc.description.references New, B. (1997). The rationing debate: Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for The case for. BMJ, 314(7079), 498-498. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498 es_ES
dc.description.references Shane, S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448-469. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602 es_ES
dc.description.references Slaughter S. Leslie L. L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Small H. (2013) The Value of the Humanities. Oxford, UK: OUP. es_ES
dc.description.references Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing «productive interactions» in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. doi:10.3152/095820211x12941371876742 es_ES
dc.description.references Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1993). Age and the Nobel prize revisited. Scientometrics, 28(3), 387-399. doi:10.1007/bf02026517 es_ES
dc.description.references Stokes D. E. (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. es_ES
dc.description.references Tartari, V., & Breschi, S. (2012). Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university-industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1117-1147. doi:10.1093/icc/dts004 es_ES
dc.description.references Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in Universityâ Industry Licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162-178. doi:10.1093/cep/byh012 es_ES
dc.description.references Trowler P. Saunders M. Bamber V. (2012) Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the Significance of Disciplines in Higher Education. New York: Taylor and Francis. es_ES
dc.description.references Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425-441. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.004 es_ES
dc.description.references Van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001 es_ES
dc.description.references Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandeberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37(8), 1255-1266. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.020 es_ES
dc.description.references Weingart, P. (2009). Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva, 47(3), 237-239. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9131-5 es_ES
dc.description.references Zahra, S. A., Van de Velde, E., & Larraneta, B. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 569-608. doi:10.1093/icc/dtm018 es_ES
dc.description.references Zomer, A. H., Jongbloed, B. W. A., & Enders, J. (2010). Do Spin-Offs Make the Academics’ Heads Spin? Minerva, 48(3), 331-353. doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9154-y es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem