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

Brian M. Belcher; Luisa F. Ramirez; Rachel Davel; Rachel Claus

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvy037

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

Brian M. Belcher, Luisa F. Ramirez, Rachel Davel, Rachel Claus

Research output: Contribution to journal › Research Article › peer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	196-201
Number of pages	6
Journal	Research Evaluation
Volume	28
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy037
State	Published - Apr 1 2019
Externally published	Yes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Education
Library and Information Sciences

Access to Document

10.1093/reseval/rvy037

Cite this

@article{6257de027faa4fac81460b066aba4286,

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",

abstract = "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.",

author = "Belcher, {Brian M.} and Ramirez, {Luisa F.} and Rachel Davel and Rachel Claus",

note = "Funding Information: The Sustainability Research Effectiveness Program is supported by funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 The Author(s).",

year = "2019",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1093/reseval/rvy037",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "28",

pages = "196--201",

journal = "Research Evaluation",

issn = "0958-2029",

publisher = "Beech Tree Publishing",

number = "2",

}

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, Brian M.; Ramirez, Luisa F.; Davel, Rachel et al.
In: Research Evaluation, Vol. 28, No. 2, 01.04.2019, p. 196-201.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Research Article › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A response to Hansson and Polk (2018) "assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research

T2 - The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact

AU - Belcher, Brian M.

AU - Ramirez, Luisa F.

AU - Davel, Rachel

AU - Claus, Rachel

N1 - Funding Information: The Sustainability Research Effectiveness Program is supported by funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s).

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064111743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064111743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/reseval/rvy037

DO - 10.1093/reseval/rvy037

M3 - Research Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064111743

SN - 0958-2029

VL - 28

SP - 196

EP - 201

JO - Research Evaluation

JF - Research Evaluation

IS - 2

ER -

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

Abstract

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this