Abstract The social impact of scientific research constitutes a new research frontier for both science and technology assessment and scientometric research. Recent advances in this area are systematically reviewed from the perspectives of both theoretical research and practical projects. Some hot subtopics of the social impact of research such as its definition, assessment models and frameworks, evaluative indicators, and assessment methods are elaborated in detail. Finally, some developed countries?? national research assessment systems for the social impact of research are also introduced.
1 Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(2): 217-233. 2 Holbrook J B, Frodeman R. Peer review and the ex ante assessment of societal impacts[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 239-246. 3 van der Meulen B, Rip A. Evaluation of societal quality of public sector research in the Netherlands[J]. Research Evaluation, 2000, 9(1): 11-25. 4 Bozeman B, Youtie J. Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1387-1398. 5 Bozeman B, Sarewitz D. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation[J]. Minerva, 2011, 49(1): 1-23. 6 McNie E C, Parris A, Sarewitz D. Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(4): 884-895. 7 van Vught F, Ziegele F. Designing and testing the feasibility of a multidimensional global university ranking final report[R]. Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente, 2011. 8 van den Brink H M, de Haas M, van den Heuvel J, et al. Evaluating the societal relevance of academic research: A guide[R]. The Hague: Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, 2010. 9 Molas-Gallart J, Salter A, Patel P, et al. Measuring third stream activities: Final report to the Russell Group of Universities[R]. Brighton: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 2002. 10 Salter A J, Martin B R. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(3): 509-532. 11 Alston J M, Pardey P G, James J S, et al. The economics of agricultural R&D[J]. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2009, 1(1): 537-566. 12 Evenson R E. Economic impacts of agricultural research and extension[M]// Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 573-628. 13 Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation[J]. Research Policy, 1991, 20(1): 1-12. 14 Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings[J]. Research Policy, 1998, 26(7-8): 773-776. 15 Narin F, Hamilton K S, Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between US technology and public science[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(3): 317-330. 16 Martin B R. The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a frankenstein monster?[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 247-254. 17 Kamenetzky J R. Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2013, 40(1): 72-84. 18 Spaapen J M, van Drooge L. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 211-218. 19 Donovan C, Hanney S. The ‘payback framework’ explained[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 181-183. 20 Higher Education Funding Council for England. Decisions on assessing research impact[EB/OL] [2019-10-11]. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abdn.ac.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fhefce-decisions-on-assessing-impact.docx. 21 Moed H F, Halevi G. Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10): 1988-2002. 22 Godin B, Doré C. Measuring the impacts of science: Beyond the economic dimension[R/OL]. Helsinki: Helsinki Institute for Science and Technology Studies, 2005. http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_Dore_Impacts.pdf. 23 Milat A J, Bauman A E, Redman S. A narrative review of research impact assessment models and methods[J]. Health Research Policy and Systems, 2015, 13: 18. 24 Donovan C. State of the art in assessing research impact: Introduction to a special issue[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 175-179. 25 Klautzer L, Hanney S, Nason E, et al. Assessing policy and practice impacts of social science research: The application of the Payback Framework to assess the Future of Work programme[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 201-209. 26 Scott J E, Blasinsky M, Dufour M, et al. An evaluation of the Mind-Body Interactions and Health Program: Assessing the impact of an NIH program using the Payback Framework[J]. Research Evaluation, 2011, 20(3): 185-192. 27 Spaapen J, van Drooge L, Propp T, et al. SIAMPI final report[EB/OL]. [2019-10-20]. http://www.siampi.eu/Content/SIAMPI_Final%20report.pdf. 28 Joly P B, Gaunand A, Colinet L, et al. ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization[J]. Research Evaluation, 2015, 24(4): 440-453. 29 Bozeman B. Public value mapping of science outcomes: Theory and method[M]// Knowledge Flows and Knowledge Collectives: Understanding the Role of Science and Technology Policies in Development, 2003, 2: 3-48. 30 Douthwaite B, Kuby T, van de Fliert E, et al. Impact pathway evaluation: An approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2003, 78(2): 243-265. 31 王茜, 谭宗颖, 钱力. 科学研究社会影响力评价综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(14): 143-148. 32 Donovan C. The qualitative future of research evaluation[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2007, 34(8): 585-597. 33 Donovan C. The australian research quality framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research[J]. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008, 2008(118): 47-60. 34 Rymer L. Measuring the impact of research—The context for metric development[R]. Turner: Group of Eight, 2011. 35 Beise M, Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany[J]. Research Policy, 1999, 28(4): 397-422. 36 Rau H, Goggins G, Fahy F. From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research[J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(1): 266-276. 37 Ruegg R, Feller I. A toolkit for evaluating public R&D investment: Models, methods, and findings from ATP’s first decade[R]. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2003. 38 Pedrini M, Langella V, Battaglia M A, et al. Assessing the health research??s social impact: A systematic review[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3): 1227-1250. 39 Grant J. Evaluating the outcomes of biomedical research on healthcare[J]. Research Evaluation, 1999, 8(1): 33-38. 40 Lewison G, Sullivan R. The impact of cancer research: How publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines[J]. British Journal of Cancer, 2008, 98(12): 1944-1950. 41 邱均平, 余厚强. 替代计量学的提出过程与研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(19): 5-12. 42 邱均平, 余厚强. 基于影响力产生模型的替代计量指标分层研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(5): 53-58. 43 Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Marx W. Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: How often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3): 1477-1495. 44 余厚强, 肖婷婷, 王曰芬, 等. 政策文件替代计量指标分布特征研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2017, 43(5): 57-69. 45 Youtie J, Bozeman B, Jabbehdari S, et al. Credibility and use of scientific and technical information in policy making: An analysis of the information bases of the National Research Council’s committee reports[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(1): 108-120. 46 Wilsdon J, Allen L, Belfiore E, et al. The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management[R]. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2015. 47 Taylor M. Exploring the boundaries: How altmetrics can expand our vision of scholarly communication and social impact[J]. Information Standards Quarterly, 2013, 25(2): 27-32. 48 HEFCE. The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies[R]. King’s College London and Digital Science, 2015. 49 Broader impacts criteria: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?[EB/OL]. [2019-11-20]. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf. 50 Cohen W M, Nelson R R, Walsh J P. Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D[J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(1): 1-23. 51 Bastow S, Dunleavy P, Tinkler J. The impact of the social sciences: How academics and their research make a difference[M]. London: SAGE Publications, 2014.
