Poorly implemented academies

The challenge of knowledge transfer in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Authors

  • Manuel Martínez Nicolás Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, España Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61283/3cy80z34

Keywords:

Academy, transfer, Social Sciences, Humanities

Abstract

In the presentation of a conference held at the University of Manchester in April 2019 under the title Academics, Professionals and Publics: Changes in the Ecologies of Knowledge Work, Eric Lybeck, founder of the organisation Civic Sociology, raised the paradox that probably never before in history has knowledge played such a fundamental role in the development of human life, but also never before has there been such a growing distrust of the knowledge generated by scientists, experts and, in general, by those who are (we are) professionally engaged in the work of producing knowledge. And he invited us not to dismiss this paradox with the disdain of the "sage" towards the "layperson", but to reflect on the responsibility that the scientific community itself might be taking in nurturing this distancing: "Could these dynamics be caused by the way in which knowledge is organised institutionally, politically and publicly", Lybeck asked. An invitation, as we said, to rethink our practices and ways of doing things, the criteria with which we give value to the research we carry out, the interests (not necessarily spurious) we serve or the use given to the knowledge we produce.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Comisión Europea (2013): Horizon 2020. Work programme 2014-2015. Part 16: Science with and for Society. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-swfs_en.pdf

Comisión Europea (2017): Horizon 2020. Work programme 2018-2020. Part 16: Science with and for Society. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/main/h2020-wp1820-swfs_en.pdf

Comisión Europea (2021): Horizon Europe. Strategic Plan 2021-2024.

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/horizon_europe_strategic_plan_2021-2024.pdf

Dijstelboem, H.; Huisman, F.; Miedema, F. y Mijnhardt, W. (2013): Science in transition: Position paper. Why science does not work as it should and what to do about it. https://scienceintransition.nl/en/about-science-in-transition/position-paper

Donovan, C. (2008): “The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental and cultural returns of publicly funded research”, New Directions for Evaluation, 118, pp. 47–60.

Holmes, B. J. (2017): “On the co-production of research: Why we should say what we mean, mean what we say, and learn as we go”. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/21/on-the-co-production-of-research-why-we-should-say-what-we-mean-mean-what-we-say-and-learn-as-we-go/

Holmes, B. J.; Best, A.; Davies, H.; Hunter, D. J.; Kelly, M.P.; Marshall, M. y Rycroft-Malone, J. (2016): “Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: A call to action”, Evidence & Policy. A Journal of Research Debate and Practice, 13 (3), pp. 539-560.

IAMCR (2018): “IAMCR condemns political interference in australian research funding”. Comunicado de la International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), 12 de noviembre de 2018. https://iamcr.org/clearinghouse/australia-interference

IAMCR (2020): “IAMCR opposes Australian policy”. Comunicado de la International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), 17 de julio de 2020. https://iamcr.org/clearinghouse/australian-degree-fee-increase

Martin, S. (2019): “Co-production of social research: Strategies for engaged scholarship”, Public Money & Management, 30 (4), pp. 211-218.

Nogrady, B. (2018): “Australian academics fear political interference following vetoed projects”, Nature, 30 de octubre.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07221-3

Ofir, Z.; Schwandt, T.; Duggan, C. y McLean, R. (2016): Research Quality Plus (RQ+): A holistic approach to evaluating research. International Development Research Centre. https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/56528

Samuel, G. N. y Derrick, G. E. (2015): “Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014”, Research Evaluation, 24, pp. 229-241.

VSNU, KNAW y NOW [Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) y Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW)] (2009): Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009- 2015. Protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands. Disponible en https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/sep2009-2015.pdf

VSNU, KNAW y NOW [Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) y Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW)] (2016): Standard Evaluation Protocol 2015-2021. Protocol for research assessments in the Netherlands. Disponible en https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP2015-2021.pdf

VSNU, KNAW y NOW [Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) y Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW)] (2020): Strategy Evaluation Protocol 2021-2027. Disponible en https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP_2021-2027.pdf

Downloads

Published

2022-12-28

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Martínez Nicolás, Manuel. 2022. “Poorly Implemented Academies: The Challenge of Knowledge Transfer in the Social Sciences and Humanities”. International Journal of Research and Transfer in Communication and Social Sciences 1 (1): 12-24. https://doi.org/10.61283/3cy80z34.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 11

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.