نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
2 گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی. دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی؛ دانشگاه شیراز. شیراز. ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Objective: This study aimed to provide a systematic and analytical review of research impact measurement frameworks. In recent decades, assessing the value and return on research investment, beyond mere publication, has become a central concern for funders, policymakers, and researchers. "Research impact" now encompasses a wide range of tangible and intangible outcomes in economic, social, cultural, environmental, health, and policy spheres. Given the proliferation of models, this research analyzes and compares these frameworks.
Methods: In terms of approach, this study is a mixed-methods research project conducted in two distinct yet complementary phases. The first step was conducted using the meta-synthesis method, following the seven-step model by Sandelowski and Barroso (2006). In this phase, through a systematic and extensive search in valid Iranian (e.g., SID, Magiran, Irandoc, Noormags) and international (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, ProQuest) databases, relevant documents (including scientific articles, policy reports, and theses) were collected. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 160 documents (27 Persian articles and 133 English articles) were finally selected for the meta-synthesis process. These documents were carefully studied, and through analysis and interpretation of their content, key concepts, components, and themes related to impact measurement frameworks were extracted. The second step of the research was dedicated to the quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the identified frameworks. In this section, the components, dimensions, key indicators, proposed methods for data collection, evaluation mechanisms, as well as the strengths and limitations of each of the 15 final frameworks were carefully examined, compared, and categorized.
Findings: The findings led to the identification of 15 distinct international frameworks, primarily developed in leading science-policy countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Australia, and Canada. These frameworks show significant philosophical and operational diversity, each emphasizing specific impact dimensions. Notable examples include the Payback Framework (five dimensions: knowledge, capacity building, policy, health, economic benefits), the UK Research Excellence Framework (emphasizing narrative evidence), and the Social Impact Assessment Methods framework (focusing on science-society interactions). Comparative analysis revealed fundamental differences among them regarding indicator types (quantitative vs. qualitative), assessment time horizon, target impact domain, and primary data collection methods (from bibliometrics to interviews and case studies). None are comprehensive on their own, each possessing specific strengths and limitations.
Conclusion: The study concludes that research impact measurement is a complex, multidimensional, and context-dependent process. Despite methodological advances, no universal, all-encompassing model exists to cover all impact dimensions and types. The selection or design of an appropriate framework depends entirely on evaluation objectives, organizational context, disciplinary nature, and research type. To enhance impact measurement, key strategies include an intelligent combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, attention to long-term tracking, and a move towards flexible, context-sensitive, multi-criteria systems. Recognizing the diversity of pathways to impact—from academic to societal and economic channels—is key to achieving a fair, meaningful, and useful assessment of research investments.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)