Valorization of transdisciplinary research: An evaluation approach and empirical illustration

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Stefania Munaretto, C. Mooren, L. Hessels
{"title":"Valorization of transdisciplinary research: An evaluation approach and empirical illustration","authors":"Stefania Munaretto, C. Mooren, L. Hessels","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvac019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent times, there has been a surge of impact-oriented, transdisciplinary research programmes and projects integrating multiple disciplines, types of knowledge and practices. An essential element often mentioned in the literature to improve the performance of these programmes and support impact delivery is continuous reflection and learning via evaluation. We argue that because a standard format for organizing transdisciplinary research does not exist, tailor-made evaluation approaches designed around the specificities of each programme are needed. The existing evaluation literature provides useful building blocks that can be integrated and adapted to specific transdisciplinary research contexts. In this article, we develop the valorization cycle and apply it to evaluate a transdisciplinary research programme in the water sector. The building blocks of our approach are: understanding of valorization as a cyclical process; theory of change as a logic model to structure the evaluation; productive interactions as a process indicator articulated in learning outcomes (cognitive, relational, and strategic); and impact pathways as narratives to explain impact dynamics. Our framework is based both on research evaluation and learning literature and on our personal experience in the evaluation of transdisciplinary research. The evaluation of the programme showed how the valorization cycle can point to different learning outcomes across the research process that are conducive to impact, and provided useful insights to the programme managers to adjust the programme. The principle of tailoring an evaluation approach to the specificities of the programme evaluated using building blocks from the literature will be applicable in other transdisciplinary contexts too.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In recent times, there has been a surge of impact-oriented, transdisciplinary research programmes and projects integrating multiple disciplines, types of knowledge and practices. An essential element often mentioned in the literature to improve the performance of these programmes and support impact delivery is continuous reflection and learning via evaluation. We argue that because a standard format for organizing transdisciplinary research does not exist, tailor-made evaluation approaches designed around the specificities of each programme are needed. The existing evaluation literature provides useful building blocks that can be integrated and adapted to specific transdisciplinary research contexts. In this article, we develop the valorization cycle and apply it to evaluate a transdisciplinary research programme in the water sector. The building blocks of our approach are: understanding of valorization as a cyclical process; theory of change as a logic model to structure the evaluation; productive interactions as a process indicator articulated in learning outcomes (cognitive, relational, and strategic); and impact pathways as narratives to explain impact dynamics. Our framework is based both on research evaluation and learning literature and on our personal experience in the evaluation of transdisciplinary research. The evaluation of the programme showed how the valorization cycle can point to different learning outcomes across the research process that are conducive to impact, and provided useful insights to the programme managers to adjust the programme. The principle of tailoring an evaluation approach to the specificities of the programme evaluated using building blocks from the literature will be applicable in other transdisciplinary contexts too.
跨学科研究的价值化:一种评估方法与实证说明
近年来,融合了多个学科、知识类型和实践的注重影响的跨学科研究方案和项目激增。文献中经常提到的一个重要因素是通过评估不断反思和学习,以提高这些方案的绩效并支持影响的交付。我们认为,由于不存在组织跨学科研究的标准格式,因此需要围绕每个方案的具体情况设计量身定制的评估方法。现有的评估文献提供了有用的构建块,可以整合并适应特定的跨学科研究背景。在本文中,我们开发了定价周期,并将其应用于评估水务部门的跨学科研究计划。我们的方法的组成部分是:将定价理解为一个周期性过程;变革理论作为构建评价的逻辑模型;生产性互动作为学习结果(认知、关系和战略)中表达的过程指标;以及作为解释影响动态的叙述的影响途径。我们的框架基于研究评估和学习文献,以及我们在跨学科研究评估中的个人经验。对该方案的评估表明,定价周期如何指向整个研究过程中有利于产生影响的不同学习结果,并为方案管理人员调整该方案提供了有用的见解。使用文献中的构建块根据评估方案的具体情况调整评估方法的原则也适用于其他跨学科背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信