Scholarlink

Background <p>Citation-based metrics dominate research evaluation systems worldwide, yet they fail to recognise the societal value of scholarship, particularly research that tackles local issues and community needs. As universities and policymakers increasingly emphasise community engagement and real-world impact, there is an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation frameworks that acknowledge diverse forms of scholarly contribution.</p> Objective <p>This study introduces and empirically validates the Community Engagement Score (CES), a new multidimensional metric designed to assess research impact based on its local relevance, community involvement, and practical application.</p> Methods <p>This paper employed a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of 500 peer-reviewed research outputs from six academic disciplines with qualitative data collection through structured surveys involving 100 researchers and semi-structured interviews with 20 policymakers across four East African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda). The CES framework assesses research along three equally weighted dimensions via an expert panel evaluation, demonstrating established inter-rater reliability.</p> Results <p>Analysis revealed significant differences in community engagement based on funding sources, with locally funded research achieving notably higher mean CES scores compared to internationally funded projects (10.4 vs. 7.5; t(498) = 11.2, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.02). The study also identified a statistically significant negative correlation between CES and citation counts (<i>r</i> = -0.34, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), implying that highly cited research does not necessarily benefit the community. Applied disciplines demonstrated better community engagement, with public health and environmental science recording mean CES scores of 10.2 and 9.8, respectively, compared to systemic barriers such as tenure systems that undervalue engagement activities (74% of researchers) and limited institutional support for applied research (68% of researchers).</p> Conclusions <p>The CES provides empirically validated evidence of the gap fields, such as physics (6.4) and engineering (6.9). The qualitative analysis comparing academic recognition with societal impact offers a complementary framework to traditional bibliometric indicators. Using CES in research assessment systems could better align academic motivations with societal needs, particularly in cases where community-engaged scholarship addresses urgent local challenges.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The community engagement score as an alternative framework for assessing research impact beyond bibliometric indicators

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月21日

查看全文
  • Zawadi Ally Nkulikwa

摘要

Background

Citation-based metrics dominate research evaluation systems worldwide, yet they fail to recognise the societal value of scholarship, particularly research that tackles local issues and community needs. As universities and policymakers increasingly emphasise community engagement and real-world impact, there is an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation frameworks that acknowledge diverse forms of scholarly contribution.

Objective

This study introduces and empirically validates the Community Engagement Score (CES), a new multidimensional metric designed to assess research impact based on its local relevance, community involvement, and practical application.

Methods

This paper employed a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of 500 peer-reviewed research outputs from six academic disciplines with qualitative data collection through structured surveys involving 100 researchers and semi-structured interviews with 20 policymakers across four East African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Rwanda). The CES framework assesses research along three equally weighted dimensions via an expert panel evaluation, demonstrating established inter-rater reliability.

Results

Analysis revealed significant differences in community engagement based on funding sources, with locally funded research achieving notably higher mean CES scores compared to internationally funded projects (10.4 vs. 7.5; t(498) = 11.2, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.02). The study also identified a statistically significant negative correlation between CES and citation counts (r = -0.34, p < 0.001), implying that highly cited research does not necessarily benefit the community. Applied disciplines demonstrated better community engagement, with public health and environmental science recording mean CES scores of 10.2 and 9.8, respectively, compared to systemic barriers such as tenure systems that undervalue engagement activities (74% of researchers) and limited institutional support for applied research (68% of researchers).

Conclusions

The CES provides empirically validated evidence of the gap fields, such as physics (6.4) and engineering (6.9). The qualitative analysis comparing academic recognition with societal impact offers a complementary framework to traditional bibliometric indicators. Using CES in research assessment systems could better align academic motivations with societal needs, particularly in cases where community-engaged scholarship addresses urgent local challenges.