Are 'STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus'?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research's social value

There is a reasonably settled consensus within the innovation community that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research is more 'useful' to societies than other types of research, notably social sciences and humanities (SSH) researchOlmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martinez, E. (2014). Are 'STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus'?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research's social value. Science and Public Policy. 41(3):384-400. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct071S384400413Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005Alrøe, H. F., & Kristensen, E. S. (2002). Agriculture and Human Values, 19(1), 3-23. doi:10.1023/a:1015040009300Azagra-Caro, J. M. (2007). What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firm? Some reasons for the delocalisation of university–industry interaction. Technovation, 27(11), 704-715. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.003Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229-247. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1994.tb00876.xBullen *, E., Robb, S., & Kenway, J. (2004). ‘Creative destruction’: knowledge economy policy and the future of the arts and humanities in the academy1. Journal of Education Policy, 19(1), 3-22. doi:10.1080/0268093042000182609Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-1313. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002Donovan, C. (2005). The Governance of Social Science and Everyday Epistemology. Public Administration, 83(3), 597-615. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00464.xEdgar, A., & Pattison, S. (2006). Need humanities be so useless? Justifying the place and role of humanities as a critical resource for performance and practice. Medical Humanities, 32(2), 92-98. doi:10.1136/jmh.2006.000226Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93-114. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2010). Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 343-353. doi:10.3152/030234210x501171Hessels, L. K., van Lente, H., & Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387-401. doi:10.3152/030234209x442034Jaaniste, L. (2009). Placing the creative sector within innovation: The full gamut. Innovation, 11(2), 215-229. doi:10.5172/impp.11.2.215Kaiser, R., & Prange-Gstöhl, H. (2010). A paradigm shift in European R&D policy? The EU Budget Review and the economic crisis. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 253-265. doi:10.3152/030234210x496655Kyvik, S. (1994). Popular science publishing. Scientometrics, 31(2), 143-153. doi:10.1007/bf02018557Kyvik, S. (2005). Popular Science Publishing and Contributions to Public Discourse among University Faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288-311. doi:10.1177/1075547004273022Leisyte, L., & Horta, H. (2011). Introduction to a special issue: Academic knowledge production, diffusion and commercialization: policies, practices and perspectives. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 422-424. doi:10.3152/030234211x12960315267697Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2011). Tracing «productive interactions» to identify social impacts: an example from the social sciences. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 219-226. doi:10.3152/095820211x12941371876706Nightingale, P., & Scott, A. (2007). Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 543-553. doi:10.3152/030234207x254396Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109-119. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90074-zPerkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.xPilegaard, M., Moroz, P. W., & Neergaard, H. (2010). An Auto-Ethnographic Perspective on Academic Entrepreneurship: Implications for Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 46-61. doi:10.5465/amp.2010.50304416Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303-328. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00111-1Spaapen, J., & van Drooge, L. (2011). Introducing «productive interactions» in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218. doi:10.3152/095820211x12941371876742Van Langenhove, L. (2012). Make social sciences relevant. Nature, 484(7395), 442-442. doi:10.1038/484442

Do researchers in SSH have a third mission (and should they have)?

The chaptere examines for the first time the data on third mission activities of academic staff in Italy (2011-2013). It compares the activities of scholars in SSH and STEM. Contrary to most wisdom, scholars in SSH are engaged intensively in activities simiar to their colleagues. The paper discusses the implications and the directions for future research