A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data
MetadataShow full item record
Ramos-Vielba I, Robinson-Garcia N, Woolley R (2022) A value creation model from science-society interconnections: Archetypal analysis combining publications, survey and altmetric data. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269004. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269004]
SponsorshipSpanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (EXTRA project, grant CSO2013-48053-R); Oslo Institute for Research on the Impact of Science (OSIRIS, grant 256240); Ramo´n y Cajal grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science (RYC2019- 027886-I)
The interplay between science and society takes place through a wide range of intertwined relationships and mutual influences that shape each other and facilitate continuous knowledge flows. Stylised consequentialist perspectives on valuable knowledge moving from public science to society in linear and recursive pathways, whilst informative, cannot fully capture the broad spectrum of value creation possibilities. As an alternative we experiment with an approach that gathers together diverse science-society interconnections and reciprocal research-related knowledge processes that can generate valorisation. Our approach to value creation attempts to incorporate multiple facets, directions and dynamics in which constellations of scientific and societal actors generate value from research. The paper develops a conceptual model based on a set of nine value components derived from four key research-related knowledge processes: production, translation, communication, and utilization. The paper conducts an exploratory empirical study to investigate whether a set of archetypes can be discerned among these components that structure science-society interconnections. We explore how such archetypes vary between major scientific fields. Each archetype is overlaid on a research topic map, with our results showing the distinctive topic areas that correspond to different archetypes. The paper finishes by discussing the significance and limitations of our results and the potential of both our model and our empirical approach for further research.