Abstract
The impact and interaction of science with society is difficult to measure, especially at a national level. In this study, data collected for the quadrennial evaluation (2013–2016) of all postgraduate courses in Brazil was used to characterise production by universities as well as their interaction with society as registered in technical services. Over 4 million activities were registered in the 4 years, mainly related to university activities. Production profiles varied according to the area of knowledge. Most patents (over 8700 in total) were in the multidisciplinary and medical areas, followed by engineering, exact, biological and agricultural, 263 in other countries. There were more maps produced by the humanities and more computer applications (apps) in engineering and multidisciplinary. The Humanities, Applied Social Sciences, and Literature, letters and arts also gave more short courses, and appeared on more TV programs and in newspapers, showing greater interaction with the general public than other areas. These areas also offered more technical services, which included evaluating, editing, and writing papers and projects, participating in evaluation committees, event organization, among others. Other types of material included educational videos, folders for divulging scientific activities etc. In the Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature, letters and arts words associated with Law (case, court), Work (Labour, work, managing, plan) and Education are evident. In the life sciences, health is predominant while in the exact sciences analyses linked to agriculture, toxins, water and environment are at the forefront. Most of the external work registered by university lecturers was for governments (local, regional or national). The quality and standardization of the information collected by official means needs to be improved so that useful, timely and relevant impact analyses can be produced more easily.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abreu, M., Grinevich, V. Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge Exchange between Academics and the Business, Public and Third Sectors, Centre for Business Research and UK∼IRC, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. https://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/AcademicSurveyReport.pdf.
Archambault, E. (2010). The outputs and impacts of social sciences and humanities research: Evidence from bibliometrics research and two large-scale web surveys. https://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_SSHRC_Brown_Bag_SSH_Research_Impacts.pdf.
Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2010). The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature. In 2010 World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides, Chapter 7. Competing in the knowledge society (7.2 Assessment and evaluation of research, pp. 251–254). Co-publication commissioned by UNESCO from the International Social Science Council (ISSC). ISBN: 978-92-3-104131-0.
Azevedo, M. (2016). The evaluation of the social impacts of culture: culture, arts and development. Economies and finances. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Paris I, 2016. English. ffNNT: 2016PA01E041ff. fftel-01804118v2f.
BAR. (2008). Punching our weight: The humanities and social sciences in public policy making. A British Academy Report. https://heranet.info/assets/uploads/2017/11/Punching-our-weight-the-humanities-and-social-sciences-in-public-policy-making-British-Academy.pdf.
Bowman, J. (2013). Defining and evaluating impact in the humanities. Carmen Annual Meeting, Porto. www.carmen-medieval.net/download/1404041556/?at=1.
Brownell, K. D., & Roberto, C. A. (2015). Strategic science with policy impact. The Lancet., 385, 2445–2446.
Bulaitis, Z. (2017). Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value. Palgrave Communications., 3, 7.
CGEE. (2016). Mestres e doutores 2015 - Estudos da demografia da base técnico-científica brasileira. Brasília, DF : Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10182/734063/Mestres_Doutores_2015_Vs3.pdf.
Coppock, A., Ekins, E., & Kirby, D. (2018). The long-lasting effects of newspaper Op-Eds on public opinion. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2018(13), 59–87.
D’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, 1295–1313.
David, P. A. (2004). Understanding the emergence of ‘open science’ institutions: functionalist economics in historical context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13, 571–589.
ESF. (2012a). Evaluation in Research and Research Funding Organisations: European Practices A report by the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research. ISBN: 978-2-918428-83-1. https://archives.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1564237862&hash=6e9777f080c5b939f9cd652561a7739dda5b011a&file=/fileadmin/be_user/CEO_Unit/MO_FORA/MOFORUM_Eval_PFR__II_/Publications/mof_evaluation_final.pdf.
ESF. (2012b). The challenges of impact assessment—Report of the ESF Member Organisation Forum on Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research. https://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/zahlen_fakten/programm_evaluation/impact_assessment_wg2.pdf.
ESF. (2013). Science Policy Briefing “Science in Society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times”, June 2013. https://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb50_ScienceInSociety.pdf.
Farias, C. R. O., Carvalho, I. C. M., & Borges, M. G. (2014). One decade of environmental education research in Brazil: Trajectories and trends in three national scientific conferences (ANPEd, ANPPAS and EPEA). Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1326018.
Federation for the Humanities and Social Science. (2014). The Impacts of Humanities and Social Science Research, Working Paper, October 2014. https://www.ideas-idees.ca/sites/default/files/2014-10-03-impact-project-draft-report-english-version-final2.pdf..
Feldman, L. (2016). Effects of TV and cable news viewing on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. Climate Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.367.
Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A., & Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change., 138, 261–278.
Hayden, M. C., Weiβ, M., Pechriggl, A., & Wutti, D. (2018). Insights into university knowledge transfer in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) and other scientific disciplines—More similarities than differences. Front: Frontiers Research Metrics and Analytics. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00032.
Krull, W., & Tepperwien, A. (2016). The four ‘I’s: quality indicators for the humanities. In M. Ochsner, S. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities. Cham: Springer.
Landry, R., Saïhi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, 39(10), 1387–1403.
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533.
Larivière, V., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Siler, K., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research. PLoS ONE, 13(8), e0202120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202120.
League of European Research Universities (LERU). (2013). The Future of the Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe: Collected LERU Papers on the SSH Research Agenda. Advice Paper.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 641–655.
McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
McManus, C., Baeta Neves, A. A., Maranhão, A. Q., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. (2019). Science in Brazil: The good, the bad and the ugly (submitted).
Mugnaini, R., DiGiampietri, L. A., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2014). Scientific communication in Brazil (1998–2012): Indexing, growth, flow and dispersion. Transinformação, 26(3), 239–252.
NAS. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research: Third Edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
Neresini, F., & Lorenzet, A. (2014). Can media monitoring be a proxy for public opinion about technoscientific controversies? The case of the Italian public debate on nuclear power. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514551506.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S., & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.). (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4
OECD. (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martinez, E., & Deste Cukierman, P. (2014). Knowledge transfer activities in social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with non-academic agents. Research Policy., 43(4), 696–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.004.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2014). Informal collaborations between social sciences and humanities researchers and non-academic partners. Science and Public Policy., 41(4), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct075.
Perkman, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 259–280.
Scherer, R. W., Ugrate-Gil, C., Schmucker, C., & Meerpohl, J. J. (2015). Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology., 68, 803–810.
Silberberg, S. D., Crawford, D., Finkelstein, R., Koroshetz, W. J., Blank, R. D., Freeze, H. H., et al. (2017). Shake up conferences. Nature, 548, 153–154. https://doi.org/10.1038/548153a.
Van den Akker, W. & Spaapen, J. (2017). Productive interactions: Societal impact of academic research in the knowledge society. LERU position paper. https://www.leru.org/files/Productive-Interactions-Societal-Impact-of-Academic-Research-in-the-Knowledge-Society-Full-paper.pdf.
Venturini, T. (2012). Building on faults: How to represent controversies with digital methods. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 796–812.
Wutti, D., & Hayden, M. (2017). Knowledge transfer in the social sciences and humanities (SSH)—Definition, motivators, obstacles, and visions. Colloquium New Philologies, 2, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.23963/cnp.2017.2.1.7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McManus, C., Baeta Neves, A.A. Production profiles in Brazilian Science, with special attention to social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics 126, 2413–2435 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03452-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03452-2