Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value

Julia Olmos-Penuela, Paul Stephen Benneworth, Elena Castro-Martinez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)
121 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

There is a reasonably settled consensus within the innovation community that science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research is more ‘useful’ to societies than other types of research, notably social sciences and humanities (SSH) research. Our paper questions this assumption, and seeks to empirically test whether STEM researchers’ practices make their research more useful than that of SSH researchers. A critical reading of the discussion around SSH research supports developing a taxonomy of differences. This is tested using a database of 1,583 researchers from the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Results do not support the view that SSH research is less useful than STEM research, even if differences are found in the nature of both transfer practices and their research users. The assumption that STEM research is more useful than SSH research needs revision if research policy is to properly focus on research which is useful for society.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)384-400
Number of pages17
JournalScience and public policy
Volume41
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Oct 2014

Keywords

  • IR-87706
  • METIS-298579

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?: Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this