MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145694212 · doi:10.22091/stim.2020.5770.1415

Challenges to Creating Impact in Humanities and Social Sciences in Iran: A Grounded Theory Analysis

2021· article· en· W3145694212 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Golhasany, Tahere Hosseini, Mohammad Hassanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theorySnowball samplingViewpointsQualitative researchRelevance (law)Context (archaeology)PsychologySociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementSocial scienceMedicineGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: Increasingly, researchers and universities are demanded to demonstrate the relevance of their publicly funded research projects to societal challenges and development. This societal contribution is referred to as research impact in Iran. The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the challenges of creating research impact in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in Iran’s context. To do so, we investigated participants' viewpoints from the research community and potential research users. Methodology: This was a qualitative study with an explanatory orientation to address the study aim. Participants were SSH researchers and research managers at Iranian national universities as well as representatives of governmental organizations that had direct roles in the production or the use of research results. We used purposeful snowball sampling to identify participants with relevant knowledge and experience. Accordingly, we carried out semi-structured interviews with 16 participants. For analyzing the data, the grounded theory method was used, and then a final theory was formed. Findings:Data from the interviews represented broad challenges in the process of research to impact. Specifically, these challenges were classified into six categories, namely, the core phenomenon, causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. Each of these categories relates to a different aspect of challenges that researchers or potential users face in knowledge mobilization and uptake of research evidence. Conclusions:The study revealed that the main obstacle to creating research impact in SSH in Iran is the lack of a definition for knowledge mobilization that is appropriate to SSH research. The current definitions and structures in universities are not consistent with the characteristics of SSH research and its audience. Furthermore, since this definition is not consistent with the nature of SSH research, researchers do not receive the necessary incentives and support for this purpose and are not able to integrate knowledge mobilization activities with their current academic activities and responsibilities. These findings emphasize the role of universities in facilitating the impact creation process by employing appropriate definitions and structures for knowledge mobilization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.561
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207