This document summarizes a study examining how academic engagement and interdisciplinary research relate to achieving both scientific impact and societal relevance. Negative binomial regressions on survey and publication data from Spanish scientists found that: 1) Academic engagement and interdisciplinary variety were positively associated with both societal relevance and scientific impact; 2) Interdisciplinary disparity was positively associated with societal relevance but its interaction with variety was positively associated with scientific impact; 3) Control variables like past impact, productivity and affiliations were also significant predictors. The study provides empirical evidence that engagement and interdisciplinary research can enhance complementarities between scientific and societal impacts.

1. 2019 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy
14-16 October 2019
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States
ALIGNING SCIENTIFIC IMPACT AND SOCIETAL RELEVANCE:
THE ROLES OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Pablo D’Esteª, Irene Ramos-Vielbaªb, Nicolas Robinson-Garciaac, Richard
Woolleyad
ªIngenio (CSIC-UPV), Spain
bDanish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Denmark
cDelft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, The Netherlands
dOSIRIS, Oslo Institute for Research on the Impact of Science

2. 2
MOTIVATIONS
 The relationship between scientific impact and societal relevance
◼ Increasing pressure to demonstrate both scientific and societal
impact from publicly funded research:
• funding agencies
• reward systems
▪ Open discussion on whether these goals are reinforcing or conflicting
 Provide a conceptual and empirical approach to analyze the
factors that contribute to enhance complementarities
◼ e.g. the type of research that is conducive to contributions to both
theory and practice

3. 3
The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance
Mutually exclusive
Logics in conflict and potentially
detrimental to each other
Mutually reinforcing
Distinct logics but potentially
complementary to each other
BACKGROUND I

4. 4
The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance
Mutually exclusive
Logics in conflict and potentially
detrimental to each other
Mutually reinforcing
Distinct logics but potentially
complementary to each other
• Academics and practitioners hold
irreconcilable views about what constitutes
academic quality and relevant research
• Styles, methods and agendas are conflicting
• The pressure for immediate applicable
results is incompatible with ambitious
scientific research goals
(Shrivastra & Mitroff, 1984; Priem & Rosenstein, 2000; Kieser &
Leiner, 2009)
• Academic research is unlikely to jointly
satisfy the communities of science and
practice: trying to reach both would imply
sacrificing rigour or relevance
BACKGROUND I

5. 5
The uneasy relation between scientific impact and societal relevance
Mutually exclusive
Logics in conflict and potentially
detrimental to each other
Mutually reinforcing
Distinct logics but potentially
complementary to each other
• Academics and practitioners hold
irreconcilable views about what constitutes
academic quality and relevant research
• Styles, methods and agendas are conflicting
• The pressure for immediate applicable
results is incompatible with ambitious
scientific research goals
(Shrivastra & Mitroff, 1984; Priem & Rosenstein, 2000; Kieser &
Leiner, 2009)
• When theories are sound and well-tested,
they have valuable insights to offer to practice
• Academics and practitioners value research
that addresses fundamental challenges and is
well supported by evidence
• Research results are perceived as useful
when jointly interpreted with practitioners
(Schendel, 1991; Baldridge et al., 2004; Van de Ven & Johnson,
2006)
• Academic research is unlikely to jointly
satisfy the communities of science and
practice: trying to reach both would imply
sacrificing rigour or relevance
• Different perspectives are not only
negotiable in the context of a particular
research, but they are also susceptible to
lead to greater relevance and better science
BACKGROUND I

6. 6
What type of research-related factors are associated to outputs that
achieve both scientific impact and societal relevance?
BACKGROUND II
i. Academic engagement
 Involvement of scientists in research interactions with non-
academic actors
Productive Interactions (Spaapen & van Drooge, 2011) / Engaged Scholarship (Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006)
Higher Societal Relevance
− Engagement improves scientists’ understanding of problems faced by practitioners
− increases the perceived usefulness of research findings, by non-academic
communities
Higher Scientific Impact
‒ Engagement may provide insights for framing original research questions and
conducting blue sky research
‒ and it contributes to build coordination mechanisms to attenuate potentially
damaging effects on scientific autonomy or rigour
➢ H1: Scientists who have a greater engagement with non-academic actors in
their research activities, are more likely to achieve higher levels of societal
relevance and scientific impact from research results.

7. 7
What types of research-related factors are associated to outputs that
achieve both scientific impact and societal relevance?
BACKGROUND II
ii. Interdisciplinary research (IDR)
 Bringing together diverse scientific disciplines (sc. communities)
IDR and scientific impact (Leahey et al. 2017; Schilling & Green, 2011) / Atypical combinations (Uzzi et al. 2013)
Higher Societal Relevance
− IDR favours more pluralistic perspectives in science, which are particularly well-
suited to address complex social problems (Owen & Goldberg, 2010),
− induces searching for legitimacy / recognition beyond the academic community:
looking more directly into the world of practice (Kleinbaum, 2012)
Higher Scientific Impact
‒ Accumulated experience in IDR may provide a unique source for atypical
knowledge recombination and creativity
‒ and it may help building coordination mechanisms to integrate research
communities with dissimilar knowledge-bases, norms and practices
➢ H2: Scientists who have a stronger involvement in interdisciplinary research
approaches are more likely to achieve higher levels of societal relevance and
scientific impact from research results.

8. 8
▪ SURVEY DATA
• Data from a large scale survey on Spanish scientists
o Sample frame: whole population of authors affiliated to Spanish Universities,
PROs and Hospitals, who have at least one article published within the period
2012-2014 (WoS): 57,406 individuals
o The population covers all fields of science: e.g. STEM, BIO, HUM, SOC ...
• Scientists were invited to participate in an on-line survey, June-July 2016
• Response rate: 21%: 11,992 valid responses
• Respondents are representative of the target population in terms of
discipline and type of organisation
DATA SOURCES AND METHOD
▪ SECONDARY DATA
• Publication data from Web of Science (WoS)
o Number of publications published by each scientist
o Number of citations received by each paper
• Altmetric data - mentions in social media platforms (Altmetric.com)
o Number of mentions of publications in: blogs, news and policy briefs

9. 9
0
2000400060008000
Frequency
0 2 4 6
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE (log transformed)
Measures: Dependent variables (I)
1. Societal Relevance
▪ Mentions of publications from three social media platforms -
blogs, news and policy briefs
▪ No of mentions to articles published in the 3-year period 2013-2015, in
blogs, news and policy briefs (open citation window) / Source: altmetric.com
79% of scientists in our sample have zero
publications mentioned in blogs, news or
policy briefs
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE: Descriptive statistics
Mean Median p95 St. Dev. Min. Max
1.84 0.00 6.00 15.42 0 660

10. 10
0
200040006000
Frequency
0 1 2 3 4 5
SCIENTIFIC IMPACT (log transformed)
Measures: Dependent variables (II)
2. Scientific Impact
▪ Outstanding scientific contributions (no of highly cited publications)
▪ No of articles published in the WoS in the 3-year period 2013-2015, which are
among the top 10% most cited in their respective scientific fields and publication
year (open-citation window) / Source: WoS
66% of scientists in our sample have zero
publications among the top 10% most
cited
SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Descriptive statistics
Mean Median p95 St. Dev. Min. Max
0.87 0.00 4.00 3.46 0 104

11. 11
Measures: Dependent variables (II)
3. Categorical variable: distinct profiles of research performance
▪ We define four categories based on the scores on the measures
of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance
▪ Cutting points correspond to having at least 1 paper among the 10% most cited,
or having at least 1 mention in social media platforms to articles

12. 12
Measures: Dependent variables (II)
High Soc. RelevanceLow Soc. Relevance
High Sc. Impact
Low Sc. Impact
14%20%
59% 7%
Category 1:
High-High
Category 2:
High-Low
Category 3:
Low-High
Category 4:
Low-Low
3. Categorical variable: distinct profiles of research performance
▪ We define four categories based on the scores on the measures
of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance
▪ Cutting points correspond to having at least 1 paper among the 10% most cited,
or having at least 1 mention in social media platforms to articles

13. 13
Measures: Explanatory variables
1. Academic engagement
▪ No of joint research projects, R&D Contracts or Consultancy
agreements, over the 3-year period 2013-2015, with non-academic org. such
as: SMEs, large companies, Public Adm., Hospitals, Associations, etc ... / Source:
Survey
2. Interdisciplinary Research
▪ IDR_Variety: Number of distinct disciplinary backgrounds of
team members
– No of disciplinary backgrounds of scientists’ research team members,
selecting from a list of 51 field disciplines (matching WoS subject categories) /
Source: Survey
▪ IDR_Disparity: Degree of cognitive distance between the
disciplinary backgrounds of team members
– We build a discipline-to-discipline matrix, where cross-citations among WoS subject
categories are used to compute a similarity index for each pair of disciplines
– We compute an average disparity indicator using the information of disciplinary
backgrounds of the research team members: Source: Survey / WoS

14. 14
MEASURES: CONTROL VARIABLES
▪ PAST SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
• Mean Normalised Citation Score (MNCS) for all the articles published before 2013. MNCS
provides an average score for all publications, normalising the citation scores relative to the
average citation of papers in the same field and same year of publication.
▪ PAST PUBLICATION COUNT
• Number of articles published previous to 2013.
▪ SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC
• age (and age squared), gender (women =1), academic status (professor = 1)
▪ APPLIED FOCUS
▪ Continuous variable measuring the extent to which the respondent has an orientation to
applied vs. basic research (from 0 to 100).
▪ MOTIVATIONAL FEATURES
•‘Intrinsic’ Motivation and ‘Extrinsic’ Motivation to conducting scientific research
▪ TYPE OF ORGANISATION: dummies controlling for University, PROs or other type of affiliation.
▪ SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (9 dummies:“Humanities” is the reference category)

15. 15
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)

16. 16
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table)
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
(1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b)
Engagement
IDR-Variety
IDR-Disparity
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity
Intrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic Motivation
Age
Age Squared
Gender (women)
Professor
Applied Orientation
PROs
Hospital or Others
Past Nº Publications
Past Scientific Impact
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum)
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler)
Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)

17. 17
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table)
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
(1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b)
Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038**
IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043
IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059**
Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015
Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137***
Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***
Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049
Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026
Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252***
Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416***
Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608***
Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Results: Dep. Variables: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact (Obs. 10,150)

18. 18
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table)
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
(1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b)
Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038**
IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043
IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059**
Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015
Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137***
Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***
Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049
Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026
Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252***
Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416***
Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608***
Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)

19. 19
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table)
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
(1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b)
Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038**
IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043
IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059**
Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015
Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137***
Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***
Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049
Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026
Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252***
Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416***
Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608***
Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)

20. 20
RESULTS I: NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed) (Not all controls have been included in this Table)
SOCIETAL RELEVANCE SCIENTIFIC IMPACT
(1a) (2a) (3a) (4a) (1b) (2b) (3b) (4b)
Engagement 0.112** 0.129** 0.110** 0.088* 0.039** 0.042** 0.039** 0.038**
IDR-Variety 0.261*** --- 0.312*** 0.310*** 0.044** --- 0.036 0.043
IDR-Disparity --- 0.145*** -0.079 -0.061 --- 0.039* 0.012 0.012
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity --- --- --- 0.288*** --- --- --- 0.059**
Intrinsic Motivation 0.150** 0.148** 0.146** 0.148** 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.015
Extrinsic Motivation 0.015 0.021 0.018 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Age -0.129** -0.129** -0.126** -0.134** -0.135*** -0.136*** -0.135*** -0.137***
Age Squared 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001***
Gender (women) -0.489*** -0.491*** -0.497*** -0.509*** -0.052 -0.052 -0.052 -0.049
Professor -0.495** -0.498** -0.499** -0.511*** 0.024 0.021 0.024 0.026
Applied Orientation -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
PROs 0.645*** 0.699*** 0.647*** 0.616*** 0.249*** 0.256*** 0.250*** 0.252***
Hospital or Others 0.393** 0.383** 0.396** 0.404** 0.417*** 0.415*** 0.417*** 0.416***
Past Nº Publications 0.715*** 0.709*** 0.712*** 0.752*** 0.603*** 0.604*** 0.604*** 0.608***
Past Scientific Impact 0.857*** 0.873*** 0.849*** 0.867*** 1.456*** 1.457*** 1.456*** 1.455***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
Results: Societal Relevance and Scientific Impact / Interdisciplinary Research (Obs. 10,150)

21. 21
Interplay between IDR-Variety and IDR-Disparity

22. 22
-1.4 -1 -.6 -.2 .2 .6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 4.2
IDR-Variety
Low Disparity High Disparity
SCIENTIFICIMPACT
-1.4 -1 -.6 -.2 .2 .6 1 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3 3.4 3.8 4.2
IDR-Variety
Low Disparity High Disparity
Interplay between IDR-Variety and IDR-Disparity
Societal Relevance Scientific Impact
▪ The positive relationship between spanning multiple disciplinary fields
(IDR-Variety) and both societal relevance and scientific impact
… is enhanced for greater levels of spanning distant fields (IDR-Disparity)

23. 23
RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance /
Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low
Category 1 (Joint High Performance)
Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
Engagement
IDR-Variety
IDR-Disparity
Intrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic Motivation
Age
Age Squared
Gender (women)
Professor
Applied Orientation
PROs
Hospital or Others
Past Nº Publications
Past Scientific Impact
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum)
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler)
Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)

24. 24
RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance /
Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low
Category 1 (Joint High Performance)
Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
Engagement 0.081** 0.089** 0.022 0.028 0.049 0.055
IDR-Variety 0.151*** --- 0.108** --- 0.145*** ---
IDR-Disparity --- 0.142*** --- 0.101* --- 0.154***
Intrinsic Motivation 0.005 0.003 -0.014 -0.015 -0.004 -0.005
Extrinsic Motivation -0.043 -0.041 -0.005 -0.003 -0.076* -0.074*
Age -0.204*** -0.207*** -0.147*** -0.149*** -0.051 -0.054
Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001 0.001
Gender (women) -0.136* -0.137* 0.033 0.033 -0.112 -0.113
Professor 0.181 0.178 0.437** 0.4536** 0.022 0.022
Applied Orientation -0.001 -0.001 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.001
PROs 0.550*** 0.567*** 0.217* 0.229* 0.239*** 0.256***
Hospital or Others 0.764*** 0.761*** 0.914*** 0.913*** 0.460*** 0.460***
Past Nº Publications 0.941*** 0.943*** 0.559*** 0.561*** 0.483*** 0.486***
Past Scientific Impact 1.900*** 1.905*** 1.601*** 1.609*** 0.323*** 0.327***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)

25. 25
RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance /
Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low
Category 1 (Joint High Performance)
Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2
M1 M2 M1 M2 M1 M2
Engagement 0.081** 0.089** 0.022 0.028 0.049 0.055
IDR-Variety 0.151*** --- 0.108** --- 0.145*** ---
IDR-Disparity --- 0.142*** --- 0.101* --- 0.154***
Intrinsic Motivation 0.005 0.003 -0.014 -0.015 -0.004 -0.005
Extrinsic Motivation -0.043 -0.041 -0.005 -0.003 -0.076* -0.074*
Age -0.204*** -0.207*** -0.147*** -0.149*** -0.051 -0.054
Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001** 0.001 0.001
Gender (women) -0.136* -0.137* 0.033 0.033 -0.112 -0.113
Professor 0.181 0.178 0.437** 0.4536** 0.022 0.022
Applied Orientation -0.001 -0.001 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.001
PROs 0.550*** 0.567*** 0.217* 0.229* 0.239*** 0.256***
Hospital or Others 0.764*** 0.761*** 0.914*** 0.913*** 0.460*** 0.460***
Past Nº Publications 0.941*** 0.943*** 0.559*** 0.561*** 0.483*** 0.486***
Past Scientific Impact 1.900*** 1.905*** 1.601*** 1.609*** 0.323*** 0.327***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)

26. 26
RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance /
Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low
Category 1 (Joint High Performance)
Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2
Engagement 0.073* 0.012 0.039
IDR-Variety 0.133*** 0.108 0.119**
IDR-Disparity 0.055 0.033 0.083
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity 0.089*** 0.228*** 0.261***
Intrinsic Motivation 0.004 -0.015 -0.005
Extrinsic Motivation -0.040 -0.002 -0.072*
Age -0.2017*** -0.151*** -0.055
Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001
Gender (women) -0.125* 0.046 -0.099
Professor 0.195 0.453*** 0.039
Applied Orientation -0.001 0.001 -0.001
PROs 0.556*** 0.6221* 0.251***
Hospital or Others 0.760*** 0.908*** 0.454***
Past Nº Publications 0.959*** 0.581*** 0.508***
Past Scientific Impact 1.906*** 1.611*** 0.329***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34
Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)

27. 27
RESULTS II: MULTINOMIAL LOGIT REGRESSIONS
* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
Category 1: High-High / Category 2: High Sc. Impact – Low Soc. Relevance /
Category 3: Low Sc. Impact – High Soc. Relevance / Category 4: Low-Low
Category 1 (Joint High Performance)
Reference category Category 4 Category 3 Category 2
Engagement 0.073* 0.012 0.039
IDR-Variety 0.133*** 0.108 0.119**
IDR-Disparity 0.055 0.033 0.083
IDR Variety * IDR Disparity 0.089*** 0.228*** 0.261***
Intrinsic Motivation 0.004 -0.015 -0.005
Extrinsic Motivation -0.040 -0.002 -0.072*
Age -0.2017*** -0.151*** -0.055
Age Squared 0.001*** 0.001** 0.001
Gender (women) -0.125* 0.046 -0.099
Professor 0.195 0.453*** 0.039
Applied Orientation -0.001 0.001 -0.001
PROs 0.556*** 0.6221* 0.251***
Hospital or Others 0.760*** 0.908*** 0.454***
Past Nº Publications 0.959*** 0.581*** 0.508***
Past Scientific Impact 1.906*** 1.611*** 0.329***
Sci. Disciplines (9 dum) Included Included Included
Pseudo R2 (Cragg-Uhler) 0.34
Results: Joint Achievement of Scientific Impact and Societal Relevance (Obs. 10,150)

28. Preliminary Conclusions
A) We find evidence supporting the “uneasy” relationship between scientific
impact and societal relevance
▪ High Scientific Impact is not directly associated with scoring high in Societal
Relevance
▪ Diverse profiles
• Results suggests that there is a high heterogeneity of profiles
regarding research performance
• There is little evidence to claim that the logics underlying scientific
impact and societal relevance are SYSTEMATICALLY:
• “detrimental” or
• “reinforcing” to each other

29. Preliminary Conclusions
B) We argue that conflicts connected with reaching both academic and non-
academic audiences can be mitigated
▪ We find that Academic Engagement and Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is
associated with the capacity to jointly reach societal relevance and scientific
impact from public science
➢ Engagement (joint & contract research) mobilises bidirectional flows of
knowledge
o enhancing mutual awareness of gains from research results
o and facilitating alignment of research incentives and goals
➢ IDR (spanning multiple and disparate fields of science) enhances access to
dissimilar sources of knowledge
o favoring the capacity to integrate know-why and know-how
o and the capacity to exploit the complementarities of bringing together a
plurality of perspectives in research activities

30. Thanks for your
attention!!!
Nicolas Robinson-Garcia
elrobinster@gmail.com
INGENIO [CSIC-UPV] Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación | Edif 8E 4º Camino de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia
tel +34 963 877 048
fax +34 963 877 991