Challenges to Creating Impact in Humanities and Social Sciences in Iran: A Grounded Theory Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Educational Studies, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

2 Ph.D. Student in Higher Education Management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.

3 Professor, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Aim: Increasingly, researchers and universities are demanded to demonstrate the relevance of their publicly funded research projects to societal challenges and development. This societal contribution is referred to as research impact in Iran. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the challenges of creating research impact in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in Iran’s context. To do so, we investigated participants' viewpoints from the research community and potential research users.
Methodology: This was a qualitative study with an explanatory orientation to address the study aim. Participants were SSH researchers and research managers at Iranian national universities as well as representatives of governmental organizations that had direct roles in the production or the use of research results. We used purposeful snowball sampling to identify participants with relevant knowledge and experience. Accordingly, we carried out semi-structured interviews with 16 participants. For analyzing the data, the grounded theory method was used, and then a final theory was formed.
Findings:Data from the interviews represented broad challenges in the process of research to impact. Specifically, these challenges were classified into six categories, namely, the core phenomenon, causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. Each of these categories relates to a different aspect of challenges that researchers or potential users face in knowledge mobilization and uptake of research evidence.
Conclusions:The study revealed that the main obstacle to creating research impact in
SSH in Iran is the lack of a definition for knowledge mobilization that is appropriate to SSH research.
The current definitions and structures in universities are not consistent with the characteristics of SSH research and its audience. Furthermore, since this definition is not consistent with the nature of SSH research, researchers do not receive the necessary incentives and support for this purpose and are not able to integrate knowledge mobilization activities with their current academic activities and responsibilities. These findings emphasize the role of universities in facilitating the impact creation process by employing appropriate definitions and structures for knowledge mobilization.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abreu, M. & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2): 408-422.
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005.
Amara, N.; Ouimet, M. & Landry, R. (2004). New Evidence on Instrumental, Conceptual, and Symbolic Utilization of University Research in Government Agencies. Science Communication, 26(1): 75-106. Doi:10.1177/1075547004267491.
Baldini, N.; Grimaldi, R. & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities, patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35: 518-532.
Bandola-Gill, J. (2019). Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 46(6): 895-905.
Doi:10.1093/scipol/scz037.
Behzadi, N.; Razavi, M. & Hosseini, R. (2014). Designing a conceptual model of entrepreneurial university with organizational entrepreneurship approach. Journal of Entrepreneurial Development, 7(4): 697-713. [In Persian]
Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.3rd ed.. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Bielak, A.T.; Shaxson, L. & Clappison, A. (2012). Expanding Our Understanding of K* (KT, KE, KTT, KMb, KB, KM, Etc.). A Concept Paper Emerging from the K* Conference Held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, April 2012, United Nations University Press.
Bowen, G.A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1): 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4): 627-655. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00093-1.
Cain, K.; Shore, K.; Weston, C. & Sanders, C.B. (2018). Knowledge Mobilization as a Tool of Institutional Governance: Exploring Academics’ Perceptions of “Going Public”. Canadian Journal of Higher Education/Revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur, 48(2): 39-54.
Comprehensive scientific map of the country (2010). Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. [In Persian]
Cooper, A. (2012).Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A cross-case analysis of 44 Canadian organizations. University of Toronto.
Creswell, J.W. & Brown, M.L. (1992). How chairpersons enhance faculty research: A grounded theory study. The Review of Higher Education, 16(1): 41-62.
Doi:10.1353/rhe.1992.0002.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ehsani,V.; Azami, M.; Najafi, M.B & Soheili, F.(2016 A). The impact of internal scientific research on Iran's development indicators. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 32(2): 319-347. [In Persian]
Ehsani,V.; Azami, M.; Najafi, M.B & Soheili, F.(2016 B). An introduction to explaining the place of the concept of "impact" in the "mental model" common in Iran, in order to investigate the causes of lack of attention to the impact of research in the country. Science and Technology Policy, 6(2): 5-28. [In Persian]
Elliott, N. & Jordan, J. (2010). Practical strategies to avoid the pitfalls in grounded theory research. Nurse Researcher, 17(4): 29-40. Doi:10.7748/nr2010.07.17.4.29.c7922.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1): 64-77.
Fattahi, R. (2014). Confrontation of scientometric indicators with indicators of socio-economic development. Lecture presented at the National Conference on Science Assessment: Evaluation and Pathology (Scientific Outputs). University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. [In Persian]
Fini, R.; Lacetera, N. & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39(8): 1060-1069. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.014.
Golshani, M. (2014). Essay fever is a plague. SarAmad, 9: 72-77. [In Persian]
Graham, I.D.; Grimshaw, J.M.; Tetroe, J.M. & Robinson, N.J. (2005). KT Challenges for Researchers: How Are Canadian Health Researchers Promoting the Uptake of Their Findings? Ottawa: Ottawa Health Research Institute.
Graham, I.D.; McCutcheon, C. & Kothari, A. (2019). Exploring the frontiers of research co-production: the Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network concept papers. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1): 88. Doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0501-7.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Suny Press.
Health Research Council of New Zealand. (2020). Research Impact Assessment.
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from: https://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-
09/2020%20Research%20Impact%20Slideshow%20with%20notes.pd.
Jacobson, N.; Butterill, D. & Goering, P. (2004). Organizational Factors that Influence University-Based Researchers’ Engagement in Knowledge Transfer Activities. Science Communication, 25(3): 246-259. Doi:10.1177/1075547003262038.
Khosravi, M.; Pornaghi, R. & Rasouli, B. (2016). Investigating and proposing indicators of research impact in Iran. Available at: https://irandoc.ac.ir/research/1860. [In Persian]
Lavis, J.N. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge‐translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1): 37-45.
Levin, B. & Qi, J. (2013). Assessing organizational efforts to mobilize research knowledge in education. education policy analysis archives, 21.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Mahmoud Pour, B.; Rahimian, H.; Abas pour, A. & Delavar, A. (2012). Investigating the Challenges of Commercializing Humanities Research and Presenting a Underlying Theory. Quarterly of Innovation and Creativity in the Humanities, 2: 48-19. [In Persian]
Mahony, P. & Weiner, G. (2019). Neo-liberalism and the state of higher education in the UK. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(4): 560-572.
Masoumi Hamedani, H. (2003). Scientific progress and scientific development. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Policies and Management of Growth and Development Programs in Iran. Tehran: Higher Institute of Management Education and Research and Planning, 252-237. [In Persian]
Mobasher, M.; Mousavi, F.; Nakhaie, N. & Shibani, V. (2006). Investigating the principles of ethics in research on laboratory animals in a qualitative method. Ethics in Science and Technology, 1(1): 49-60. [In Persian]
Morrow, S.L. & Smith, M.L. (1995). Constructions of survival and coping by women who have survived childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1): 24-33. Doi:10.1037/0022-0167.42.1.24.
Morse, J.M. & Field, P.A. (1995). Nursing research: The application of qualitative approaches. Nelson Thornes.
Morton, S. (2015). Creating research impact: the roles of research users in interactive research mobilisation. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 11(1): 35-55. Doi:10.1332/174426514X13976529631798.
Najafi, M.; Momeni, F.; Fatollahi, J. & Azizi pour, B. (2015). An introduction to explaining the relationship between oil revenues and productivity in Iran. Quarterly of scientific Research in Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 15(4): 143-172. [In Persian]
Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P. & Castro-Martínez, E. (2014). Are sciences essential and humanities elective? Disentangling competing claims for humanities’ research public value. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(1): 61-78. Doi:10.1177/1474022214534081.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pettigrew, A.M. (2011). Scholarship with Impact. British Journal of Management, 22(3): 347-354. Doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00769x.
Purkumleh, A.; Ghobadi, S. & Khazaei, K. (2012). Third Generation University: A Step Towards Entrepreneurship. In: National Conference on Entrepreneurship and Management of Knowledge-Based Businesses. Babolsar: North Taroud Research Company. Accessible in https://civilica.com/doc/174903. [In Persian]
Sedighi, M. (2017). Investigating the application of scientific social networks in evaluating the effectiveness of researches (Case study: Research in the field of scientometrics). Available at: https://irandoc.ac.ir/research/1858. [In Persian]
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsey, K.; Lawson, K.; Kinchin, I.; Bainbridge, R.; McCalman, J.; Watkin, F. & et al. (2016). Evaluating Research Impact: The Development of a Research for Impact Tool. Frontiers in Public Health, 4(160). Doi:10.3389/fpubh.2016.00160.
UKRI. (2014). REF impact. Retrieved from: https://re.ukri.org/research/ref-impact/.
Williams, K. & Grant, J. (2018). A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Research Evaluation, 27(2): 93-105. Doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx042.
Yin, R.K. (2015). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Sciences and Techniques of Information Management
Volume 7, Issue 2
June 2021
Pages 141-174

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics