Abstract
We cannot give a final answer to defining “the public value of arts & humanities research”. Our contribution comes by firstly offering a better definition, of knowledge circulating in networks creating societal capacity, but also identifying where more research is necessary to better ground this definition. Current policy debates are hemmed in by their instrumentalism and economic reductionism, reducing research management practices to evaluation compliance practices, and missing out the manifold ways in which publics themselves actively engage with arts and humanities research. From this, we turn to the wider question of how do publics value all kinds of scientific research, and highlight three findings more generally applicable: the role of the academic as expert, the use of grey literature and reconsidering barriers of expertise.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Belfiore, E. (2013). The ‘rhetoric of gloom’ vs. the discourse of impact in the humanities: Stuck in a deadlock? In E. Belfiore & A. Upchurch (Eds.), Humanities in the twenty-first century: Beyond utility and markets (pp. 17–43). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2008). The social impact of the arts: An intellectual history. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Belfiore, E., & Upchurch, A. (Eds.) (2013). Humanities in the twenty-first century: Beyond utility and markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benneworth, P. (2014). Tracing how arts and humanities research translates, circulates and consolidates in society. How have scholars been reacting to diverse impact and public value agendas? Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, first published on May 14, 2014 as doi:10.1177/1474022214533888.
Böhme, K., & Gløersen, E. (2011). Territorial cohesion storylines: Understanding a policy concept. Spatial Foresight Brief, 1. http://spatialforesight.lu/tl_files/files/editors/dokumente/Brief-2011-1-111025.pdf. Accessed 29 Feb 2016.
Bouwman, B. (Ed.) (2014). De canon van Nederland – Onze geschiedenis in 50 thema’s. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Boyle, R. (1665). The introduction. In Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). London: Royal Society of London.
Bozeman, B. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.
Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–23.
Bucchi, M. (1998). Science and the media. London and New York: Routledge.
Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. (2015). Problematizing ‘relevance’ in the business school: The case of leadership studies. British Journal of Management, 26, 731–744.
Cagnin, C., Amanatidou, E., & Keenan, M. (2012). Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play. Science and Public Policy, 39, 140–152.
Castro-Martínez, E., Molas-Gallart, J., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2011 September, 15–17). Knowledge transfer in the social sciences and the humanities: Informal links in a public research organization. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, Georgia.
Charles, D. R., Perry, B., & Benneworth, P. (2003). Regions and science policy. Seaford: Regional Studies Association.
Collini, S. (2009, November 13). Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. Times Literary Supplement.
Corea, S. (2009). Promoting development through information technology innovation: The IT artifact, artfulness, and articulation. Information Technology for Development, 13(1), 49–69.
Crossick, G. (2009). “So who now believes in the transfer of widgets?” paper presented to Knowledge Futures Conference, Goldsmiths College, London, 16th-17th October 2009.
Hagendijk, R., & Kallerud, E. (2003, March 2). Changing conceptions and practices of governance in science and technology in Europe: A framework for analysis. STAGE, Discussion Paper. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/downloads/StageDiscussPaper2.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2010.
Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.
Hughes, A., Kitson, M., & Probert, J. (2011). Hidden connections: Knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors. Cambridge: CEBR and Bristol: Arts & Humanities Research Council. http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/special-reports/specialreport-hiddenconnections.pdf. Accessed 29 Feb 2016.
Molas-Gallart, J. (2014). Research evaluation and the assessment of public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 111–126.
Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing ‘productive interactions’ to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 219–226.
Nature Editorial. (2004, October 21). Going public: Should scientists let the public help them decide how government research funds are spent?. Nature, 341(7011), 883. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/431883a.html. Accessed 29 Feb 2016.
O’Brien, D. (2010). Measuring the value of culture: a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport. London: DCMS.
Olmos-Penuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What stimulates researchers to make their research usable? Towards an ‘openness’ approach. Minerva, 53(4), 381–410.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002b, November). Peer Review. Post Note (p. 182). London: POST.
Sandel, M. (2012). What money can’t buy. London: Alan Lane.
Spaapen, J., van Drooge, L., Propp, T., et al. (2011). Social impact assessment methods for research and funding instruments through the study of productive interactions between science and society. Report, SIAMPI final report.
Veldhoen, L., & van der Ende, J. (2003). Technische Mislukkingen, de Planta-affaire, instortende bruggen, vliegdekschepen van ijs. Amsterdam: Donker.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Benneworth, P., Gulbrandsen, M., Hazelkorn, E. (2016). Conclusions: Towards a Better Understanding of the Public Value of Arts and Humanities Research. In: The Impact and Future of Arts and Humanities Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40899-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40899-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-40898-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-40899-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)