Suchergebnisse

There is no singular way of measuring the value of research. There are multiple criteria of evaluation given by different fields, including academia but also others, such as policy, media, and application. One measure of value within the academy is citations, while indications of wider value are now offered by altmetrics. This study investigates research value using a novel design focusing on the World Bank, which illuminates the complex relationship between valuations given by metrics and by peer review. Three theoretical categories, representing the most extreme examples of value, were identified: 'exceptionals', highest in both citations and altmetrics; 'scholars', highest in citations and lowest in altmetrics; and 'influencers', highest in altmetrics and lowest in citations. Qualitative analysis of 18 interviews using abstracts from each category revealed key differences in ascribed characteristics and judgements. This article provides a novel conception of research value across fields.

Abstract
Before problems can be solved, they must be defined. In global public policy, problems are defined in large part by institutions like the World Bank, whose research shapes our collective understanding of social and economic issues. This article examines how research is produced at the World Bank and deemed to be worthwhile and legitimate. Creating and capturing research on global policy problems requires organizational configurations that operate at the intersection of multiple fields. Drawing on an in-depth study of the World Bank research department, this article outlines the structures and technologies of evaluation (i.e., the measurements and procedures used in performance reviews and promotions) and the social and cultural processes (i.e., the spoken and unspoken things that matter) in producing valuable policy research. It develops a theoretically informed account of how the conditions of measurement and evaluation shape the production of knowledge at a dominant multilateral agency. In turn, it unpacks how the internal workings of organizations can shape broader epistemic infrastructures around global policy problems.

As science becomes an increasingly crucial resource for addressing complex challenges in society, extensive demands are placed upon the researchers who produce it. Creating valuable expert knowledge that intervenes in policy or practice requires knowledge brokers to facilitate interactions at the boundary between research and policy. Yet, existing research lacks a compelling account of the ways in which brokerage is performed to gain credibility. Drawing on mixed‐method analysis of 12 policy research settings, I outline a novel set of strategies for attaining symbolic power, whereby policy experts position themselves and others via conceptual distances drawn between the "world of ideas" and the "world of policy and practice." Disciplinary distance works to situate research as either disciplinary or undisciplinary, epistemic distance creates a boundary between complex specialist research and direct digestible outputs, temporal distance represents the separation of slow rigorous research and agile responsive analysis, and economic distance situates research as either pure and intrinsic or marketable and fundable. I develop a theoretical account that unpacks the boundaries between research communities and shows how these boundaries permit policy research actors to achieve various strategic aims.

At a time when truth and facts are highly contested, understanding how knowledge gains legitimacy is crucial. Creating valuable policy knowledge involves navigating 'a space between fields', where actors and ideas from different social worlds come into play. This article outlines a novel set of strategies for attaining legitimacy within this space. Drawing on mixed‐methods analysis of interview and publication data from 12 development research organizations, the article argues that legitimacy centres around three primary types of 'coherence'. Coherence in identity is the demonstration of 'proper' goals via negotiation of organizational and individual identity. Coherence in process is the demonstration of 'proper' processes through maintenance of independence, integrity and transparency. Coherence in outcome is the demonstration of 'proper' outcomes via creation of the 'right' products, audience and impact. Mastery of these three areas makes possible the production of credible, distinctive and significant knowledge.

As a college administrator, you may have thought about mentoring one of your junior millennial employees but are hesitant due to negative generational stereotypes. As a millennial who is currently in a mentor‐mentee relationship with a baby boomer, I want to plead our case and explain the top five reasons we need your help.

This article offers a systematic review of the evolution of research impact assessment in Australia and the UK. We consider its inception and detail the development of relevant policy and procedures in each country. The article sets out the results of a comparative analysis of public policy documents, newspaper commentary, and academic literature in both countries. We examined the differences and commonalities between the two nations, revealing evaluation criteria and uncovering justifications for the adoption of impact assessment. The article highlights the convergence and divergence of the two countries' policy and procedures, as well as the political and bureaucratic contexts that have shaped their design and implementation. The article shows that the synergistic, intermittent, and iterative development of relevant policy and procedures in the two nations has been mutually beneficial for the evolution of retrospective impact assessment.

Development faces the challenge of an unexpected rise in disasters of all kinds. Prompted by two popular books about disasters (Klein 2007; Solnit 2009), we review the North American scholarly literature on disasters to answer three questions. Practically, how do local communities respond to disasters? Theoretically, what is the relationship between local social networks and disaster response/recovery? For policy, whom should we count on to carry this out? The primary finding is that communities, however devastated, are not helpless, but helping, and in particular stages. Outside social forces can help, but disregarding local networks and processes impedes disaster response/recovery.

AbstractAcademics undertaking public policy research are committed to tackling interesting questions driven by curiosity, but they generally also want their research to have an impact on government, service delivery, or public debate. Yet our ability to capture the impact of this research is limited because impact is under‐theorised, and current systems of research impact evaluation do not allow for multiple or changing research goals. This article develops a conceptual framework for understanding, measuring, and encouraging research impact for those who seek to produce research that speaks to multiple audiences. The framework brings together message, medium, audience, engagement, impact, evaluation, and affordance within the logics of different fields. It sets out a new way of considering research goals, measurements, and incentives in an integrated way. By accounting for the logics of different fields, which encompass disciplinary, institutional, and intrinsic factors, the framework provides a new way of harnessing measurements and incentives towards fruitful learning about the contribution diverse types of public policy research can make to wider impact.