首页> 外文期刊>Research evaluation >Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the European funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities
【24h】

Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the European funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities

机译:世卫组织在欧洲资金竞技场中的前赌注社会影响评估中受益? 社会科学和人文社会影响能力的跨国比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Increasingly, research funders include societal impact as a criterion in evaluation procedures. The European Commission is no exception to this trend. Societal impact determines one-third of a project's success in receiving funding from the Societal Challenges in Horizon 2020 (H2020). Yet, there are large differences in terms of science and technology performance between countries that participate in the programme. In this article, we (1) compare societal impact practices in the social sciences and humanities in high-performing countries (HPCs) and low-performing countries (LPCs) to the evaluation of societal impact in funding procedures at the European level and (2) reflect upon consequences for the competition for research funding in the European funding arena. To this end, we introduce the concept of 'societal impact capacity' as well as a framework to analyse it. The analysis of 60 case studies from 16 countries across Europe shows that (1) researchers from HPCs have a higher impact capacity than those from LPCs and (2) researchers from HPCs report more details about impact than those from LPCs. This suggests that researchers from HPCs are better equipped to score well on the impact criterion when applying for funding than researchers from LPCs. We conclude with policy recommendations for the organization and evaluation of societal impact.
机译:越来越多地,研究资助者包括社会影响作为评估程序中的标准。欧盟委员会对此趋势并不例外。社会影响决定了项目在接受地平线2020(H2020)的社会挑战中获得资金的成功的三分之一。然而,在参与该计划的国家之间的科学和技术表现方面存在巨大差异。在本文中,我们(1)将社会科学和人文学科(HPC)和低履行国家(LPC)的社会影响实践进行比较,以评估欧洲水平的资助程序和(2 )反思对欧洲资助竞技场的研究资金竞争的后果。为此,我们介绍了“社会影响能力”的概念以及分析它的框架。分析来自欧洲16个国家的60个案例研究表明,HPCS的研究人员比来自HPCS的LPC和(2)研究人员从LPCS的研究人员报告了关于影响的更多细节。这表明来自HPCS的研究人员在申请资金时比来自LPC的研究人员申请资金时更好地放置良好。我们结束了对组织的政策建议和对社会影响的评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号