Productive interactions without impact? An empirical investigation of researchers’ struggle to improve the elderly’s oral health

Author:

Gulbrandsen Magnus1,Tellmann Silje Maria1

Affiliation:

1. University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract

Background:Achieving impact of research is often seen as requiring productive interaction between researchers and stakeholders. Still, interactions are sometimes not ‘productive’ and lead to no visible impacts. Aims and objectives:This article studies repeated attempts by researchers to involve different stakeholders to facilitate pathways to societal impact. We look in particular at possible explanations for the lack of impacts. Methods:This is a longitudinal case study of an interdisciplinary group of researchers where we acted as participant observers over a period of close to six years. The studied researchers have in various ways targeted the societal challenge of oral healthcare for the elderly. Findings:We see the societal challenge as a ‘problem area’ where researchers are one of many stakeholder groups, and where the different stakeholders vary in salience, legitimacy and power. A lack of funding for the research led to continuous efforts to involve new stakeholders, envision new forms of impact, and establish a sense of urgency of the societal challenge. Discussion and conclusion:The case highlights different gaps in the problem area that are organisational, social, and institutional. We also find that there are gaps in how the fundamental societal issue is described and prioritised, and in how responsibilities for finding solutions are distributed. This seems to lead researchers away from extensive interaction and towards more traditional forms of impact through randomised controlled trials and technology push initiatives.

Publisher

Bristol University Press

Reference32 articles.

1. Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change;Argyris, C.,1993

2. The legitimacy of experts in policy: navigating technocratic and political accountability in the case of global poverty governance;Bandola-Gill, J.,2021

3. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation;Benneworth, P.,2010

4. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment;Boschma, R.,2005

5. Unmasking the ‘elderly mystique’: why it is time to make the personal political in ageing research;Carney, G.M.,2015

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3