Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2010

Open Access 01-12-2010 | Research

Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups

Authors: Sebastian P Mostert, Stéfan PH Ellenbroek, Ingeborg Meijer, Gerrit van Ark, Eduard C Klasen

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

The last decade has seen the evaluation of health research pay more and more attention to societal use and benefits of research in addition to scientific quality, both in qualitative and quantitative ways. This paper elaborates primarily on a quantitative approach to assess societal output and use of research performed by health research groups (societal quality of research). For this reason, one of the Dutch university medical centres (i.e. the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)) was chosen as the subject of a pilot study, because of its mission to integrate top patient care with medical, biomedical and healthcare research and education. All research departments were used as units of evaluation within this university medical centre.
The method consisted of a four-step process to reach a societal quality score per department, based on its (research) outreach to relevant societal stakeholders (the general public, healthcare professionals and the private sector). For each of these three types of stakeholders, indicators within four modes of communication were defined (knowledge production, knowledge exchange, knowledge use and earning capacity). These indicators were measured by a bottom-up approach in a qualitative way (i.e. all departments of the LUMC were asked to list all activities they would consider to be of societal relevance), after which they were converted into quantitative scores. These quantitative scores could then be compared to standardised scientific quality scores that are based on scientific publications and citations of peer-reviewed articles.
Based on the LUMC pilot study, only a weak correlation was found between societal and scientific quality. This suggests that societal quality needs additional activities to be performed by health research groups and is not simply the consequence of high scientific quality. Therefore we conclude that scientific and societal evaluation should be considered to be synergistic in terms of learning for the future, accountability and advocacy.
This quantitative approach to assess societal quality in a quantitative sense is based on indicators that function as proxies for society quality on different levels, based on the communication of researchers with their societal stakeholders (i.e. knowledge production, knowledge exchange and knowledge use). The methodology presented is just a first attempt to compare scientific quality scores (publication and citation scores) with societal quality scores in a quantitative way. This comparison can be used by organisations (e.g. university medical centres) in their planning and control cycle.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Crespi G, Geuna A: The Productivity of Science - Report prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. 2004, Brighton: University of Sussex Crespi G, Geuna A: The Productivity of Science - Report prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. 2004, Brighton: University of Sussex
4.
go back to reference Geuna A: The Economics of Knowledge Production - Funding and the Structure of University Research. 1999, Brighton: University of Sussex (Science Policy Research Unit) Geuna A: The Economics of Knowledge Production - Funding and the Structure of University Research. 1999, Brighton: University of Sussex (Science Policy Research Unit)
6.
go back to reference Van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, Moed HF, Nederhof TONJ, Van Raan AFJ: The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics. 2003, 57 (2): 257-280. 10.1023/A:1024141819302.CrossRef Van Leeuwen TN, Visser MS, Moed HF, Nederhof TONJ, Van Raan AFJ: The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics. 2003, 57 (2): 257-280. 10.1023/A:1024141819302.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Breimer DD: Presentation during the conference 'Maatschappelijk publiceren en waarderen van wetenschap'. Amsterdam. 2004 Breimer DD: Presentation during the conference 'Maatschappelijk publiceren en waarderen van wetenschap'. Amsterdam. 2004
8.
go back to reference Agrawal A, Cockburn I, McHale J: Gone But Not Forgotten: Labor Flows, Knowledge Spillovers, and Enduring Social Capital. Journal of Economic Geography. 2006, 6 (5): 571-591. 10.1093/jeg/lbl016.CrossRef Agrawal A, Cockburn I, McHale J: Gone But Not Forgotten: Labor Flows, Knowledge Spillovers, and Enduring Social Capital. Journal of Economic Geography. 2006, 6 (5): 571-591. 10.1093/jeg/lbl016.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Feldman M, Kelly M: The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behaviour. Research Policy. 2006, 35: 1509-1521. 10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.019.CrossRef Feldman M, Kelly M: The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behaviour. Research Policy. 2006, 35: 1509-1521. 10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.019.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hessels LK, Van Lente H, Smits R: In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy. 2009, 36 (5): 387-401. 10.3152/030234209X442034.CrossRef Hessels LK, Van Lente H, Smits R: In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy. 2009, 36 (5): 387-401. 10.3152/030234209X442034.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Van der Meulen B, Rip A: Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands. Research Evaluation. 2000, 8 (1): 11-25. 10.3152/147154400781777449.CrossRef Van der Meulen B, Rip A: Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands. Research Evaluation. 2000, 8 (1): 11-25. 10.3152/147154400781777449.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cassiman B, Veugelers R: R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review. 2001, 92 (4): 1169-1184. 10.1257/00028280260344704.CrossRef Cassiman B, Veugelers R: R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review. 2001, 92 (4): 1169-1184. 10.1257/00028280260344704.CrossRef
13.
14.
go back to reference Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Council for Medical Sciences): The societal impact of applied health research - Towards a quality assessment system. Amsterdam. 2002 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Council for Medical Sciences): The societal impact of applied health research - Towards a quality assessment system. Amsterdam. 2002
15.
go back to reference Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences): Judging research on its merits. Amsterdam. 2005 Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences): Judging research on its merits. Amsterdam. 2005
16.
go back to reference Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (Australia): Measures of quality and impact of publicly funded research in the humanities, arts and social sciences. 2005 Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (Australia): Measures of quality and impact of publicly funded research in the humanities, arts and social sciences. 2005
17.
go back to reference Martin B, Tang P: The benefits from publicly funded research - Working Paper 161. 2007, Brighton: University of Sussex (Science Policy Research Unit) Martin B, Tang P: The benefits from publicly funded research - Working Paper 161. 2007, Brighton: University of Sussex (Science Policy Research Unit)
18.
go back to reference Donovan C: Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy. 2007, 34 (8): 538-452. 10.3152/030234207X256529.CrossRef Donovan C: Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impact. Science and Public Policy. 2007, 34 (8): 538-452. 10.3152/030234207X256529.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Donovan C: The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy. 2007, 34 (8): 585-597. 10.3152/030234207X256538.CrossRef Donovan C: The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy. 2007, 34 (8): 585-597. 10.3152/030234207X256538.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Donovan C: The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Societal, Economic, Environmental and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research. New Directions for Evaluation. 2008, 118: 47-60. 10.1002/ev.260.CrossRef Donovan C: The Australian Research Quality Framework: A Live Experiment in Capturing the Societal, Economic, Environmental and Cultural Returns of Publicly Funded Research. New Directions for Evaluation. 2008, 118: 47-60. 10.1002/ev.260.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe: Medical Research: What's it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. 2008, London: UK Evaluation Forum Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics, RAND Europe: Medical Research: What's it worth? Estimating the economic benefits from medical research in the UK. 2008, London: UK Evaluation Forum
22.
go back to reference Van Ark G, Klasen EC: Societal impact of health research. Journal for health sciences. 2007, 85 (5): 259-261. Van Ark G, Klasen EC: Societal impact of health research. Journal for health sciences. 2007, 85 (5): 259-261.
23.
go back to reference Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. 1994, London: SAGE Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. 1994, London: SAGE
24.
go back to reference Van Weel C: Biomedical science matters for people - so its impact should be better assessed. The Lancet. 2002, 360 (5): 1034-1035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11175-5.CrossRef Van Weel C: Biomedical science matters for people - so its impact should be better assessed. The Lancet. 2002, 360 (5): 1034-1035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11175-5.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Advisory Council on Health Research: Publication no. 57 - Research that matters - Responsiveness of University Medical Centers to issues in public health and health care. 2007, The Hague Advisory Council on Health Research: Publication no. 57 - Research that matters - Responsiveness of University Medical Centers to issues in public health and health care. 2007, The Hague
26.
go back to reference Horton B: From bench to bedside... research makes the translational transition. Nature. 1999, 402 (6758): 213-215. 10.1038/46097.CrossRefPubMed Horton B: From bench to bedside... research makes the translational transition. Nature. 1999, 402 (6758): 213-215. 10.1038/46097.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L: The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000, 29 (2): 109-123. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.CrossRef Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L: The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000, 29 (2): 109-123. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M: Introduction - 'Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva. 2003, 41 (3): 179-194. 10.1023/A:1025505528250.CrossRef Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M: Introduction - 'Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva. 2003, 41 (3): 179-194. 10.1023/A:1025505528250.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hanney SR, Grant J, Wooding S, Buxton MJ: Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's 'Arthritis Research Campaign'. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2004, 2: 4-10.1186/1478-4505-2-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Hanney SR, Grant J, Wooding S, Buxton MJ: Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's 'Arthritis Research Campaign'. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2004, 2: 4-10.1186/1478-4505-2-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology. 2005, 44: 1145-1156. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh708.CrossRefPubMed Wooding S, Hanney S, Buxton M, Grant J: Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology. 2005, 44: 1145-1156. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh708.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Vullings W, Meijer I, Mostert SP: Strategic research planning: increase the impact of public research by integrating user-perspectives in planning and evaluation. PRIME Network's Europe-Latin America Conference on Science and Innovation. Mexico City. 2008 Vullings W, Meijer I, Mostert SP: Strategic research planning: increase the impact of public research by integrating user-perspectives in planning and evaluation. PRIME Network's Europe-Latin America Conference on Science and Innovation. Mexico City. 2008
32.
go back to reference Rienks A: Research into research - Link between research and health is difficult to prove. Medisch Contact. 2005, 60 (6): 232-234. Rienks A: Research into research - Link between research and health is difficult to prove. Medisch Contact. 2005, 60 (6): 232-234.
33.
go back to reference Van der Weijden ICM: In search of performance - Research management within the Dutch public medical and health sector. PhD thesis. 2007, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Van der Weijden ICM: In search of performance - Research management within the Dutch public medical and health sector. PhD thesis. 2007, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
34.
go back to reference Moed HF: The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy. 34 (8): 575-583. 10.3152/030234207X255179. Moed HF: The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy. 34 (8): 575-583. 10.3152/030234207X255179.
35.
go back to reference Butler L: Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy. 34 (8): 565-574. 10.3152/030234207X254404. Butler L: Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy. 34 (8): 565-574. 10.3152/030234207X254404.
36.
go back to reference Spaapen JB, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F: Evaluating Research in Context - A method for comprehensive assessment. 2007, The Hague: Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development, 2 Spaapen JB, Dijstelbloem H, Wamelink F: Evaluating Research in Context - A method for comprehensive assessment. 2007, The Hague: Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development, 2
37.
go back to reference Buxton MJ, Hanney SR: How can payback from health services research be assessed?. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 1996, 1: 35-43.PubMed Buxton MJ, Hanney SR: How can payback from health services research be assessed?. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 1996, 1: 35-43.PubMed
38.
go back to reference Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A, Hoorens S, Wooding S, Grant J, Buxton MJ, Bouter LM: Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2008, 24: 259-269. 10.1017/S0266462308080355.CrossRefPubMed Oortwijn WJ, Hanney SR, Ligtvoet A, Hoorens S, Wooding S, Grant J, Buxton MJ, Bouter LM: Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2008, 24: 259-269. 10.1017/S0266462308080355.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Oortwijn WJ: The returns from Health Care Efficiency Research in the Netherlands. 2006, Rand Europe Oortwijn WJ: The returns from Health Care Efficiency Research in the Netherlands. 2006, Rand Europe
40.
go back to reference Molas-Gallart J, Tang P, Morrow S: Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study. Research Evaluation. 2000, 9 (3): 171-182. 10.3152/147154400781777269.CrossRef Molas-Gallart J, Tang P, Morrow S: Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: results from a pilot study. Research Evaluation. 2000, 9 (3): 171-182. 10.3152/147154400781777269.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Mostert SP: Assessing societal impact of health research in the Dutch Life Sciences - a quantitative approach. MSc thesis. 2008, Utrecht University: Department of Innovation Studies Mostert SP: Assessing societal impact of health research in the Dutch Life Sciences - a quantitative approach. MSc thesis. 2008, Utrecht University: Department of Innovation Studies
Metadata
Title
Societal output and use of research performed by health research groups
Authors
Sebastian P Mostert
Stéfan PH Ellenbroek
Ingeborg Meijer
Gerrit van Ark
Eduard C Klasen
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue 1/2010
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-30

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Health Research Policy and Systems 1/2010 Go to the issue