8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Social Impact Indicators in the Context of the Roma Community: Contributions to the Debate on Methodological Implications

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Researching with methodologies focused on social impact in line with the SDGs is one of the priority orientations of the Horizon Europe program, as shown in the official European Commission document on impacts for this program. In this sense, researchers must forecast how their project will improve citizens' lives. Until now, many investigations showed the evaluation of the social impact through knowledge transfer activities that, although undoubtedly important, are not enough since the social impact is defined as the improvements derived from using the knowledge transferred to society. The search for the social impact of new research requires the introduction of impact indicators from the design, throughout the project development, and when the project ends. The introduction of indicators, in particular if they are decided in dialogue with the participants, allows not only to foresee a greater social impact but also to improve and adjust the methodology to be used. We explore this aspect in the context of research with social impact that starts from how the COVID-19 pandemic is increasing the inequalities suffered by the Roma population, causing the aggravation and creation of new problems and needs. Thus, we explain in detail how the selection of indicators that monitor the social impact, in dialogue with the Roma population, allows the design of research projects that are more appropriate to the current context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based information on coronavirus than for false information

          The World Health Organization has not only signaled the health risks of COVID-19, but also labeled the situation as infodemic, due to the amount of information, true and false, circulating around this topic. Research shows that, in social media, falsehood is shared far more than evidence-based information. However, there is less research analyzing the circulation of false and evidence-based information during health emergencies. Thus, the present study aims at shedding new light on the type of tweets that circulated on Twitter around the COVID-19 outbreak for two days, in order to analyze how false and true information was shared. To that end, 1000 tweets have been analyzed. Results show that false information is tweeted more but retweeted less than science-based evidence or fact-checking tweets, while science-based evidence and fact-checking tweets capture more engagement than mere facts. These findings bring relevant insights to inform public health policies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Research impact: a narrative review

            Impact occurs when research generates benefits (health, economic, cultural) in addition to building the academic knowledge base. Its mechanisms are complex and reflect the multiple ways in which knowledge is generated and utilised. Much progress has been made in measuring both the outcomes of research and the processes and activities through which these are achieved, though the measurement of impact is not without its critics. We review the strengths and limitations of six established approaches (Payback, Research Impact Framework, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, monetisation, societal impact assessment, UK Research Excellence Framework) plus recently developed and largely untested ones (including metrics and electronic databases). We conclude that (1) different approaches to impact assessment are appropriate in different circumstances; (2) the most robust and sophisticated approaches are labour-intensive and not always feasible or affordable; (3) whilst most metrics tend to capture direct and proximate impacts, more indirect and diffuse elements of the research-impact link can and should be measured; and (4) research on research impact is a rapidly developing field with new methodologies on the horizon.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                International Journal of Qualitative Methods
                International Journal of Qualitative Methods
                SAGE Publications
                1609-4069
                1609-4069
                January 2022
                January 06 2022
                January 2022
                : 21
                : 160940692110646
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain
                [3 ]University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
                [4 ]Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain
                Article
                10.1177/16094069211064668
                8842012e-c660-455a-badf-6941de835722
                © 2022

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article