A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact”
Hansson and Polk (2018, Research Evaluation, 27/2: 132–44) aim to assess the usefulness of the concepts of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact in transdisciplinary (TD) research. However, the article misrepresents some of the ideas in the two...
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/111881 |
| _version_ | 1855529972709457920 |
|---|---|
| author | Belcher, B. Ramírez, L.F. Davel, R. Claus, R. |
| author_browse | Belcher, B. Claus, R. Davel, R. Ramírez, L.F. |
| author_facet | Belcher, B. Ramírez, L.F. Davel, R. Claus, R. |
| author_sort | Belcher, B. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Hansson and Polk (2018, Research Evaluation, 27/2: 132–44) aim to assess the usefulness of the concepts of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact in transdisciplinary (TD) research. However, the article misrepresents some of the ideas in the two main reference articles. It also uses definitions of the concepts it aims to test that are inconsistent with the definitions offered by the reference papers. The methods description is insufficient to know what data were collected or how they were analyzed. More importantly, the effort to understand relationships between process and impact in TD research needs more careful definitions of the concepts outcome and impact as well as more objective ways to assess outcomes and impacts. This letter discusses shortcomings in the article and makes suggestions to improve conceptual clarity and methods for empirically assessing TD research effectiveness. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace111881 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateRange | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| publisherStr | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1118812024-10-03T07:40:54Z A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” Belcher, B. Ramírez, L.F. Davel, R. Claus, R. research impact Hansson and Polk (2018, Research Evaluation, 27/2: 132–44) aim to assess the usefulness of the concepts of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact in transdisciplinary (TD) research. However, the article misrepresents some of the ideas in the two main reference articles. It also uses definitions of the concepts it aims to test that are inconsistent with the definitions offered by the reference papers. The methods description is insufficient to know what data were collected or how they were analyzed. More importantly, the effort to understand relationships between process and impact in TD research needs more careful definitions of the concepts outcome and impact as well as more objective ways to assess outcomes and impacts. This letter discusses shortcomings in the article and makes suggestions to improve conceptual clarity and methods for empirically assessing TD research effectiveness. 2019-04-01 2021-03-08T08:14:50Z 2021-03-08T08:14:50Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/111881 en Open Access Oxford University Press Belcher, B., Ramirez, L.F., Davel, R., Claus, R. 2019. A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact”. Research Evaluation, 28 (2): 196-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy037 |
| spellingShingle | research impact Belcher, B. Ramírez, L.F. Davel, R. Claus, R. A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title | A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title_full | A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title_fullStr | A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title_full_unstemmed | A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title_short | A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) “Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact” |
| title_sort | response to hansson and polk 2018 assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research the usefulness of relevance credibility and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact |
| topic | research impact |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/111881 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT belcherb aresponsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT ramirezlf aresponsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT davelr aresponsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT clausr aresponsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT belcherb responsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT ramirezlf responsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT davelr responsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact AT clausr responsetohanssonandpolk2018assessingtheimpactoftransdisciplinaryresearchtheusefulnessofrelevancecredibilityandlegitimacyforunderstandingthelinkbetweenprocessandimpact |