Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

Abstract

The notion of the third mission in SSH is still problematic, as well as the concept of research impact. Several streams of critical literature have raised the concern that using the third mission notion or impact may limit the academic freedom of researchers, and reduce the independence from market pressure and impoverish the SSH’s potential for critical thinking and unorthodox visioning. However, countries which have experienced selective cuts in research funding which have penalised SSH disciplines, have seen efforts to make the hidden connections between SSH research and society more visible. This chapter reports on the debate and controversies surrounding this issue. For the first time, preliminary evidence on Public Engagement activities of scholars in SSH, taken from the large-scale assessment of third mission of Italian departments and universities, is presented. This chapter argues that not only scholars in SSH do have a third mission, but that they are not less engaged than their colleagues from STEM disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Hughes and Martin “It has been estimated that between 2000 and 2010 the UK research councils produced 96 documents dealing with impact, of which 35 were impact studies and 19 internal evaluation reports (de Campos 2010, Table 3)” (Hughes and Martin 2012, 1, footnote 2).

  2. 2.

    As an example, the cultural activities which, according to Grossi et al. (2011) have a positive impact on psychological well-being of people are as follows: Jazz music concerts; Classical music concerts; Opera/ ballet; Theatre; Museums; Rock concerts; Disco dance; Paintings exhibitions; Social activity; Watching sport; Sport practice; Book reading; Poetry reading; Cinema; Local community development. In turn, creative cities under the UNESCO initiative deal with: Crafts and Folk Art; Design; Film: Gastronomy; Literature; Music; Media Arts (UNESCO 2016).

  3. 3.

    See https://www.anvur.it/attachments/article/880/Manuale%20di%20valutazione%20TM~.pdf

  4. 4.

    The SUA-RD data collection system (the Italian acronyms can be translated as Departmental Research Information System) annually collects data from departments and is used for the on-going accreditation of universities and academic curricula. The requirement of accreditation of curricula, is that they are carried out by a faculty which is active in research. Data collected via the SUA-RD information system are made available to the expert panel in charge of carrying out the evaluation of the third mission.

  5. 5.

    The disciplinary classification of departments was made by the CETM expert panel based on the prevalent set of disciplines.

References

  • Abelhauser, A., Gori, R., & Sauret, M. J. (2011). La folie évaluation. Paris: Mille et une nuits.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange between academics, and the business, public and third sectors. London and Cambridge: UK~IRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W. N., Barnet, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O’Brien, K. (2012). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 112–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, M., & Freedman, D. (2011). The assault on universities. A manifesto for resistance. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhshi, H., Schneider, P., & Walker, C. (2008). Arts and humanities research and innovation. Bristol: Arts and Humanities Research Council and National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Available at http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/project-reports-and-reviews/arts-and-humanities-research-and-innovation/.

  • Bate, J. (2011). The public value of the humanities. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore, E., & Upchurch, A. (2013). Humanities in the twenty-first century. Beyond utility and markets. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bérubé, M., & Ruth, J. (2015). The humanities, higher education, and academic freedom. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bess, J. L. (1988). Collegiality and bureaucracy in the modern university. The influence of information and power on decision-making structures. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017a). Playing the ranking game: Media coverage of the evaluation of the quality of research in Italy. Higher Education, 73(5), 741–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2017b). Universities as celebrities? How the media select information from a large Research Assessment Exercise. Science and Public Policy, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bod, R. (2013). A new history of humanities. The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D. (2002). Silent theft. The private plunder of our common wealth. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2016). Addressing the disenchantment. Universities and regional development in peripheral regions. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Online 31 Aug, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Calvert, J., & Joly, P. B. (2011). From protecting texts to protecting objects in biotechnology and software. A tale of changes of ontological assumptions in intellectual property protection. Economy and Society, 40(4), 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialisation and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 837–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). The impact of local and external university knowledge on the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: Evidence from the Italian case. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 261–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., Secondi, L., Ancaiani, A., & Setteducati, E. (2014b). Exploring the role of third-party research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2013). What is the societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bousquet, M., Scott, T., & Parascondola, L. (2004). Tenured bosses and disposable teachers. Writing instruction in the managed University. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, W. G., & Tobin, E. M. (2015). Locus of authority. The evolution of faculty roles in the governance of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, P. (Ed.). (2014). The humanities and public life. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buekers, M., & Nugteren, B. (2012). Creative arts and research-intensive universities: A crucial partnership. LERU Briefing paper no. 2. September 2012. Available at http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/briefing-papers/. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jager, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS, 100(14), 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassin, A. (Ed.). (2014). Derrière les grilles: Sortons du tout-évaluation. Paris: Fayard/Mille et une nuits.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Economic and Business Research (2015) Contribution of the arts and culture industry to the national economy. An update of our analysis of the macroeconomic contribution of the arts and culture industry to the national economy. Report for Arts Council England, July 2015. Available at http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/340.pdf. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Chowdhury, G., Koya, K., & Philipson, P. (2016). Measuring the impact of research: Lessons from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework 2014. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0156978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citton, Y. (2010). L’avenir des Humanités. Èconomie de la connaissance ou cultures de l’interpretation? Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collini, S. (2012). What are the universities for? London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of University College London (UCL). (2011). White paper 2011–2021. London: UCL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H., Nutley, S., & Walter, I. (2005). Approaches to assessing the non-academic impact of Social Science Research: Conceptual, methodological and practical Issues. Report to the ESRC. Available at http://www.esrc.ac.uk/. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • de Campos, A. L. (2010). A study on methodologies for research impact assessment: responses of the UK research councils to the Warry report. Industry and Higher Education, 24(5), 393–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Era, C. (2010). Art for business: Creating competitive advantage through cultural projects. Industry and Innovation, 17(1), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Rey, A. (2013). La tyrannie de l’évaluation. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digital Science. (2016, July). Publication patterns in research underpinning impact in REF 2014. Report to HEFCE. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2016/refimpact/. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Donovan, C. (2011). State of the art in assessing research impact: Introduction to a special issue. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economic and Social Research Council. (2009). Taking stock. A summary of ESRC’s work to evaluate the impact of research on policy and practice. Swindon: ESRC. February 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Proposal for a council decision establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – The framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020). Brussels: COM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Perseus Book Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). La « gouvernamentalitè » : Cours du Collège de France, Annéè 1977–1978 : Securitè, territoire et population, 4 leçon, 1 février 1978. In M. Foucault (Ed.), Dits et écrits II. 1976–1988 (Vol. 2001, pp. 635–657). Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2014). Criteria for evaluating indicators. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics. Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gori, R. (2011). La dignité de penser. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gori, R. (2013). La societè des imposteurs. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi, E., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Cerutti, R. (2011). The impact of culture on the individual well-being of the Italian population: An exploratory study. Applied Research Quality Life, 6, 387–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskell J., Hughes A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau E. (2014). The economic significance of the UK science base. A report for the campaign for science and engineering. Available at http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/asset. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: New evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics (Special Issue), 36, 712–750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2013). Connecting with the Ivory Tower: Business perspectives and knowledge exchange in the UK. London and Cambridge: UK~IRC and NCUB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes A., Martin B. (2012) Enhancing the impact. The value of public sector R&D. CIHE-UK~IRC task force on enhancing value: Getting the most out of UK research. Available at: https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/centre-for-business-research/downloads/specialreports/specialreport-enhancingimpact.pdf. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Probert, J., Turner, R., Bullock, A., & Milner, I. (2011). Hidden connections knowledge exchange between the arts and humanities and the private, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Center for Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Probert, J., Turner, R., Bullock, A., & Milner, I. (2014). Cultural connections: The role of the arts and humanities in competitiveness and local development. Cambridge: Center for Business Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • King’s College London and Digital Science. (2015, March). The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies, Research Report 2015/01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, C., Hughes, A., Salter, A., Kitson, M., Bullock, A., & Hughes, R. B. (2016). Knowledge exchange in UK universities: Results from a panel of academics 2005–2015. London: NCUB.

    Google Scholar 

  • League of European Research Universities. (2012). Social siences and humanities: Essential fields for European research in Horizon 2020. LERU Advice Paper, June 2012. Available at http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/advice-papers/

  • League of European Research Universities (2013). Essential role of SSH research for societal challenges. LERU Notes (Series of 7 separate notes), April–June 2013. Available at http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/leru-notes/

  • League of European Research Universities. (2013b). Roadmap to improve the position of SSH research in the European Research Area and in Horizon 2020. LERU Notes. Available at http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/publications/category/leru-notes/

  • Martin, B. R. (2011). The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation, 20(3), 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics (Special Issue), 36(3), 543–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J. (2015). Research evaluation and the assessment of public value. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2007). Ambiguity and conflict in the development of “Third Mission” indicators. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., & Morrow, S. (2000). Assessing the non-academic impact of grant-funded socio-economic research: Results from a pilot study. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group of Universities. Brighton: SPRU University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, S. (2015). Progressing research impact assessment: A ‘contributions’ approach. Research Evaluation, 24, 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmos-Penuela, J., Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martınez, E. (2013). Informal collaborations between social sciences and humanities researchers and non-academic partners. Science and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct075.

  • Olmos-Penuela, J., Benneworth, P., & Castro-Martinez, E. (2015). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A., Moore, B. and Ulrichsen, T. (2010). Synergies and trade-offs between Research, Teaching and Knowledge Exchange, A Report to HEFCE by PACEC and the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, April. Available at https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/publications/research-reports/. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Penfield, T., Baker, M. J., Scoble, R., & Wykes, M. C. (2014). Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostrom, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Kitson, M., Krabel, S., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Fini, R., Ross, J. M., Salter, A., Silvestri, C., & Tartari, V. (2015). Accounting for universities’ impact: using augmented data to measure academic engagement and commercialisation by academic scientists. Research Evaluation, 24, 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, M. (2007). Measuring the economic and social impact of the arts: A review. London: Arts Council of England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosli, A., & Rossi, F. (2016). Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding. Are they aligned? Research Evaluation, 25(4), 427–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, G. N., & Derrick, G. E. (2015). Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation, 24, 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science Europe. (2013). Humanities in the societal challenges. 12 compelling cases for policy makers. Bruxelles: Scientific Committee for the Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Europe. (2015). Radical innovation: Humanities research crossing knowledge boundaries and fostering deep change. Bruxelles: Scientific Committee for the Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). Impact in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework. Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40(10), 1369–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaapen, J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Wamelink, F. (2007). Evaluating research in context. A method for comprehensive research assessment. The Hague: COS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. SIAMPI final report, The Netherlands. Available at: www.siampi.eu/Content/SIAMPI_Final%20report.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Supiot, A. (2015). La gouvernance par les nombres. Cours au Collège de France (2012–2014). Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP-UNCTAD (2010). Creative economy. A feasible development option, Report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations, UNCTAD/DITC/TAB/2010/3. Available at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DITC/CreativeEconomy/Creative-Economy.aspx

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2016). Creative cities network. Paris: UNESCO. Available at http://en.unesco.org/creative-cities/content/about-us.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2015/metrictide/. Accessed Oct 2017.

  • Wolf, B., Lindenthal, T., Szerencsits, T., Britt Holbrook, J., & Heß, J. (2013). Evaluating research beyond scientific impact how to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society. GAIA, 22(2), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agenzia Nazionale Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca (ANVUR), Rome, Italy

    Brigida Blasi & Sandra Romagnosi

  2. DESTEC, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea Bonaccorsi

  3. IRVAPP-FBK, Trento, Italy

    Andrea Bonaccorsi

Authors
  1. Brigida Blasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Romagnosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Bonaccorsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brigida Blasi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DESTEC, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea Bonaccorsi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., Bonaccorsi, A. (2018). Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)?. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation