English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Current scientific literature is outlining a profound and accelerated transformation in the relationships between qualitative methodologies of research, citizens, society and social theories. The evolution towards a more dialogic society has led to a less talked about methodological advancement: Citizen participation in the evaluation of the social impact of research. Social impact is a priority of the current scientific research programs that also emphasize co-creation. The co-creation of the evaluation of this social impact requires both, qualitative methodologies and innovation, in order to make them able to optimize the social impact of research. This study, aimed at presenting the first meta-analysis of such methodological innovation from researchers’ view, includes interviews with seven researchers conducting research with social impact. In order to contrast citizens’ voices, results from the interviews have been validated by seven citizens who have participated in the dialogic citizen evaluation of the social impact of research. Findings can be summarized in three main categories: first, that the participation of citizens in the evaluation of the social impact of research is possible when researchers develop their contributions within the international scientific community and by integrating the voices of citizens, which facilitates the identification of transformative realities, as well as of pseudoscientific theories that have negative consequences for society. Second, that such evaluation is grounded on dialogic interactions open to everyone and based on arguments rather than on power interactions. Third, that both citizens and researchers report impacts of participating in the dialogic evaluation of social impact, such as modifying the way in which interviews are conducted, demanding more scientific evidence, or transforming their professional practice and lives.

Researchers’ Perceptions About Methodological Innovations in Research Oriented to Social Impact: Citizen Evaluation of Social Impact