Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 1
METHODS
published: 03 March 2020
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00286
Edited by:
Sara Cadavid,
Del Rosario University, Colombia
Reviewed by:
Dirk Van Rooy,
Australian National University,
Australia
Liz Todd,
Newcastle University, United Kingdom
Manuel Jacinto Roblizo
Colmenero,
University of Castilla–La Mancha,
Spain
*Correspondence:
Gisela Redondo-Sama
grsama@cantab.net
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 23 September 2019
Accepted: 06 February 2020
Published: 03 March 2020
Citation:
Redondo-Sama G,
Díez-Palomar J, Campdepadrós R
and Morlà-Folch T (2020)
Communicative Methodology:
Contributions to Social
Impact Assessment in Psychological
Research. Front. Psychol. 11:286.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00286
Communicative Methodology:
Contributions to Social Impact
Assessment in Psychological
Research
Gisela Redondo-Sama1*, Javier Díez-Palomar2, Roger Campdepadrós3and
Teresa Morlà-Folch4
1Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, 2Department of Linguistic and Literary
Education, and Teaching and Learning of Experimental Sciences and Mathematics University of Barcelona, Barcelona,
Spain, 3Department of Business Studies, University of Girona, Girona, Spain, 4Department of Business Management,
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain
Recent advancements in the social impact assessment of science have shown the
diverse methodologies being developed to monitor and evaluate the improvements for
society as a result of research. These assessment methods include indicators to gather
both quantitative and qualitative evidence of the social impact of science achieved
in the short, medium, and long terms. In psychology, the impact of research has
been mainly analyzed in relation to scientific publications in journals, but less is known
about the methods for the social impact assessment of psychological research. Impact
assessment in the domains of educational psychology and organizational psychology
presents synergies with bottom-up approaches that include the voices of citizens and
stakeholders in their analyses. Along these lines, the communicative methodology (CM)
emerges as a methodology useful for the communicative evaluation of the social impact
of research. Although the CM has widely demonstrated social impact in the social
sciences, less is known about how it has been used and the impact achieved in
psychological research. This article unpacks how to achieve social impact in psychology
through the CM. In particular, it focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of the CM, the
postulates linked to psychological research and some key actions for the implementation
of the CM in relation to the design of Advisory Committees, working groups, and plenary
meetings in research. Furthermore, it shows how the CM has been implemented in
illustrative cases in psychological research. The article finishes with a conclusion and
recommendations to further explore the ways in which the CM enables the social impact
of research in psychology.
Keywords: impact assessment, communicative methodology, psychological research, social impact, methods
INTRODUCTION
The social impact assessment of science is becoming crucial in the debates over research evaluation,
influencing the way in which scientists conceptualize and develop their studies (Reale et al.,
2017). The growing concern among researchers, funding agencies, universities, policy makers,
stakeholders, and the general public regarding how science can result in concrete improvements
for society, contributes to establishing research impact agendas in all scientific disciplines. The field
of psychology has not been indifferent to this newly international trend. The Strategic Plan of the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 2
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
American Psychological Association, adopted in February 2019,
has the mission “To promote the advancement, communication,
and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit
society and improve lives” (APA, n.d., p. 5). In this context, there
is a need to advance knowledge about the research methodologies
that enable social impacts and the concrete ways to develop them.
The communicative methodology (CM) has been
demonstrated to achieve social impacts in different fields of
knowledge since it was conceptualized with the aim of being
useful to society, contributing to improving individuals and
collectivities under study and the society as a whole (Gómez
et al., 2011). The CM addresses social demands for dialogue
in research, including reflections and the providing of critical
views of the social contexts (Gómez et al., 2006). The CM
has the recognition of the European Commission (European
Commission, 2010;Flecha and Soler, 2014) because of relevant
research in the framework programs based on this methodology.
It is important to consider that, in science, power claims and
research dynamics can cause researchers to prioritize their status
or benefits over improving people’s lives even if scientists are
concerned with the improvement of lives. This approach can lead
to cultural, gender, age or class biases and to exclusionary science
and output. The CM contributes to transforming this concern
in science, engaging the subjects in an intersubjective dialogue
with researchers by means of which (with such engagement)
it is possible “to develop new knowledge that can transform
local conditions, as they shift from diagnosing social exclusion
to identifying the approaches that work best to reduce it”
(Flecha, 2014).
The improvement of lives and societies underscores the
definition of social impact, which differs regarding the concepts
of scientific and political impact. In an accurate review of the
literature on the evaluation of impacts of research in the social
sciences and humanities, Reale et al. (2017) related scientific
impact to the capacity to found new schools of thought and
influence future research, and they related political impact to
the use of scientific knowledge by decision makers and/or
social actors as the basis for policies and/or action (p. 300).
Impact is also connected to broader societal goals, aiming at
the improvement of the living conditions of individuals. Flecha
defined social impact as the improvement of society and citizens
in relation to their own goals, democratically settled as in the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, for instance
(European Commission, 2018).
On the basis of an extensive literature review and lessons
learned from practices worldwide, Flecha articulated a set
of quantitative and qualitative indicators, data sources and
methodologies to measure social impact achievement in the
short, medium, and long terms, drawing on the following
key impact pathways: achieving R&I missions, addressing
global challenges and engaging EU citizens. Flecha (2000)
claimed that “social impact measurement will benefit from
databases and repositories that collect evidence of social
impact, which will play a similar role as the databases of
scientific impact” (p. 56). Repositories and databases displaying
evidence of social impact have emerged in recent years,
including the Social Impact Open Repository (SIOR), the
first one worldwide to store evidence of social impacts in
all scientific fields on a free basis (Flecha et al., 2015).
That SIOR is currently linked to Wikipedia and ORCID, two
major international databases incorporating (and disseminating)
scientific knowledge, is an indication of the growing importance
that social impact has worldwide. SIOR (with Wikipedia and
ORCID) includes a set of indicators to calculate the social
impact of research projects. The definition of indicators is
related to advancements in the development of methodologies
to measure the impact of research and the assessment of
the relevance of research priorities and topics for citizenship
(European Commission, 2017).
The methodologies addressed to measure the impact of
research activity have increased worldwide, but evaluation
prevails in terms of scientific impact (Ravenscroft et al.,
2017). However, the methods for assessing social impact are
a major concern across scientific societies, funding research
agencies, universities, etc. Most of the efforts to advance
knowledge in this field, particularly in the social sciences
and humanities, can be found in Europe (e.g., Framework
Programme of the European Commission, Research Excellence
Framework in the United Kingdom), North America (e.g.,
National Science Foundation), and the BRICS countries (e.g.,
Financer of Studies and Projects in Brazil, Department of
Science and Technology in India). In the European context,
it is important to emphasize the contributions led by the
European Commission through the appointment in 2016
of the Expert Group on evaluation methodologies for the
interim and ex-post evaluations of Horizon 2020, chaired
by Flecha, and the subsequent publication of the report
entitled “Applying relevance-assessing methodologies to Horizon
2020” (European Commission, 2017), which developed four
methodologies to assess the relevance of European funding
in framework programs: expert exploratory approaches using
computer-based content analysis; expert exploratory approaches
using human content analysis; text mining approaches, and social
media approaches (top-down and bottom-up). This approach to
measuring the social impact of research relies on the involvement
of citizenship within the process of creating the criteria to define
social impact. Flecha and his team (European Commission,
2017) drew on communicative methodology to create inclusive
dialogic spaces for discussion, which is a remarkable contribution
to the field of research assessment in the social sciences and
humanities (including psychology). The guiding questions for
the development of the four aforementioned methodologies were
based on the institutional perspective, the citizen’s perspective,
and the scientific and technological perspectives. With regard to
the citizen’s perspective the question underlying the analysis was
whether Horizon 2020 was in line with the needs of EU citizens.
The citizen’s perspective sets peoples’ needs and voices at
the core of the dialogue between science and society. In
psychology, similar to other fields in the social sciences and
humanities, we can find similar trends in engaging target
populations within the process of research [design, interpretation
of the results, and/or validation and reliability (Radstake et al.,
2009;Davies et al., 2008)]. These studies look forward advancing
toward a more responsible interaction of psychology with society,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 3
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
including dialogue with vulnerable populations, for instance,
indigenous people (Davidson et al., 2000), or patients with acute
decompensation of psychiatric pathology (Moreno-Poyato et al.,
2019). Furthermore, Bromme and Goldman (2014) explored
the public understanding of science, analyzing the way in
which people make decisions linked to psychology without
a deep comprehension of research. In a similar vein, the
research program Science with and for Society (Swafs) of the
European Commission includes projects attempting to bridge
the gap between the scientific community and society at large,
with the presence of psychological research in case studies
selected in the Ex-post Evaluation of Science in Society in FP7
(European Commission, 2015).
This international trend of including people’s voices
(demands, needs, etc.) within the process of research assessment
(and the design of new research framework programs) tends
to be built from top-down approaches and therefore from the
researcher’s point of view, instead of citizens’ views (bottom-up)
(Rau et al., 2018). Complementary to the use of top-down
approaches, the methodologies linked to bottom-up could
contribute to articulating a comprehensive understanding of the
social impact of research in psychology. For instance, the use of
methodologies to assess social impact in social media capture
citizens’ opinions about the improvement of daily lives after the
implementation of research (Cabré-Olivé et al., 2017;Pulido
et al., 2018). In the light of this relationship, the CM becomes
very useful as a methodological approach that include people’s
voices from a bottom-up approach (Gómez, 2015).
In this article, we discuss how using the communicative
methodological approach to research conducted in the field
of psychology could reach remarkable levels of social impact.
We aim to unpack how to achieve a social impact in
psychological research through the CM. Communicative impact
assessment of the research is used as a method to discuss the
aforementioned goal. We first present the advancements in the
social impact assessment of psychological research, including the
methodologies used to evaluate programs, research projects, and
evidence-based interventions in psychology research that have
achieved impact. Then, we explain the theoretical underpinnings
of the CM and the postulates linked to psychological research to
clarify how can we use the CM approach as a methodological
instrument to conduct the discussion. Then, we analyze
communicative research in psychology in order to address the
aims stated above. Finally, we present the article’s conclusion and
limitations to further explore the methodologies linked to the
social impact of research in psychology.
THE COMMUNICATIVE METHODOLOGY
AS A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
TO ASSESS SOCIAL IMPACT IN
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The CM is widely recognized as a useful methodology to
achieve social impact through research since it allows for
study not only of the exclusionary elements that reproduce
inequalities but also of those elements contributing to overcome
them (European Commission, 2011;Gómez et al., 2011;
Gómez, 2017;Díez-Palomar et al., 2018). It is implemented in
diverse disciplines in the social sciences, including sociology
(Flecha and Soler, 2014), gender studies (Puigvert, 2014), and
physical education (Castanedo and Capllonch, 2018), among
others. This methodology “implies a continuous and egalitarian
dialogue among researchers and the people involved in the
communities and realities being studied” (Gómez et al., 2011).
The role of the researchers is to bring scientific knowledge
to the discussion, while the subjects contribute with their
knowledge from their lifeworlds [in Schütz’s (1967) terms].
On the basis of this dialogical process, it is common for
new understandings of social realities to flourish, informing
potential answers to social problems. The dialogue and inclusion
of people’s voices throughout the research process create
transformative synergies in the field of psychology, as reported by
Racionero and Padrós (2010).
The CM draws on the ontological assumption that “reality” is
somehow “communicative.” That is, it is a human construction
in which the meanings associated with “things” are built in
a communicative manner through the interactions between
individuals. In epistemological terms, the CM is dialogical in
nature since the scientific statements employed in the discussion
of the evidence are the result of a dialogue based on the
intersubjectivity (Stolorow et al., 1994;Gómez et al., 2006) of the
participants in the research. The social orientation of the CM is
to transform the social context through communicative action
(Habermas, 1984;Soler and Flecha, 2010), applying quantitative
and qualitative techniques. The CM draws on seven postulates
(Gómez et al., 2006, 2019):
– Universality of language and action;
– Individuals as transformative social agents;
– Communicative rationality;
– Common sense;
– Disappearance of the premise of an interpretative
hierarchy;
– Equal epistemological levels; and
– Dialogic knowledge.
In this article, we use illustrative cases in psychological
research to discuss how they have used communicative research
methods to assess social impact. Table 1 summarizes the
underlying postulates to discuss the advancements in the impact
assessment methods among the illustrative cases chosen. As far
as we know, the CM in psychological research was used in these
cases. Codes are aligned with the seven postulates of the CM, as
explained above.
TOWARD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE COMMUNICATIVE METHODOLOGY
WITH REGARD TO SOCIAL IMPACT
The CM includes in the research organization key procedures
for the design, implementation, and analysis of data. The
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 4
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
TABLE 1 | Coding scheme drawing on the seven postulates of the communicative methodology.
Postulate Definition Code Use in psychological research
Universality of language
and action
Language and action are inherent capacities of all human
beings (Habermas, 1984;Chomsky, 1996). There is no
hierarchy between cultures, ages or genders to develop
cognitive and communicative capacities that allow them to
interpret the world.
ULA This postulate implies that professionals in psychology,
patients, therapists, counselors, caregivers, families of
patients, patients’ associations, and other members
linked to psychology have the capacity to interact with
others to express their views, including the evaluation of
an intervention or program.
Individuals as
transformative social
agents
Individuals have the capacity to interpret the world and
undertake actions addressed to its transformation and
change.
ITA Vygotsky (1978) argued that language is the symbolic
tool that aids cognitive development, allowing
individuals to interact toward change. In this vein,
Bruner (2012) posited that transformation addresses
human nature, instead of biological adaptation.
Communicative
rationality
According to Habermas (1984): “the concept of
communicative rationality has to be analyzed in connection
with achieving understanding in language. The concept of
reaching an understanding suggests a rationally motivated
agreement among participants that is measured against
criticizable validity claims” (p. 75).
CR The postulate of communicative rationality in
psychology suggests that researchers or other
members enter into a scaffolding dialogue to improve
the assessment processes and methods. The ultimate
aim is to benefit the whole impact evaluation
community.
Common sense Individuals acquire diversity of knowledge and beliefs that
influence their comprehension of the world and common
sense (Schütz, 1967). This background influences the
interpretation of reality, and the cultural contexts provide
meaning to thoughts and actions (Rogoff, 2003).
CS The link between the CM and social impact evaluation
on the basis of the postulate of common sense
includes open channels of dialogue and interactions
that embrace different views and background
knowledge of very diverse agents, from practitioners to
researchers or patients.
Disappearance of the
premise of an
interpretative hierarchy
Beck addresses how the desmonopolization of experts’
knowledge occurs in the context of a risk society, paying
special attention to the role of reflexivity (Beck et al., 1994).
In the analysis by Lash of Beck’s conception of reflexivity,
the author states that “reflexivity and modernity entail a
growing freedom from and critique of expert-systems.
Structural reflexivity thus involves freedom from the
expert-systems of dominant science. Self-reflexivity involves
a freedom from and critique of various psychotherapies.
Reflexivity is based not in trust but in distrust of
expert-systems” (Beck et al., 1994, p. 116).
DIH The interpretations of academic and non-academic
audiences have the same value. Therefore, in the
evaluation of social impact framed by the CM, the best
arguments from users or scientists can improve the
assessment processes.
Equal epistemological
level
Participants and researchers are at an equal
epistemological level to understand the social reality and
participate in a research process. The contributions that
researchers and non-academic make to research are
different since the knowledge that they have is also diverse.
The knowledge coming from the individuals is experience
and daily life learning, while researchers provide scientific
knowledge.
EEL The equal epistemological level of the CM implies a
more precise analysis and understanding of
psychological and social problems. In the field of social
impact assessment in relation to this postulate, the
evaluative arguments from non-academic audiences
are equally valid and useful for developing and
improving them.
Dialogic knowledge The CM of research includes the objectivity and subjectivity
perspectives to advance toward a dual perspective of the
world that recognizes at the same level the structures
(systems) and the life world. The intersubjective perspective
underlines the interpretation of reality and generation of new
knowledge, which are influenced by the people’s
environments and meanings of reality (Flecha, 2000;
Mercer, 2000). The construction of evaluation knowledge is
grounded in dialogue since individuals accumulate
knowledge using dialogue (Howe and Abedin, 2013).
DK Impact assessment methods linked to the CM can
achieve more accurate results in the evaluation
processes since dialogue includes diverse views,
reflections, voices, needs, and perspectives from
different agents.
communicative organization of research is a concrete
methodological dimension that allows for social impact
assessment on short-, medium-, and long-term bases. There
are three actions related to the communicative organization
of research that are particularly relevant in terms of social
impact assessment: the creation of the Advisory Committee;
the definition of working groups; and the planning of plenary
meetings. These actions are foreseen since the beginning of a
research project, and they play the common role of following
up the social impact of research results and guiding potential
corrections during the research process. It is important to
emphasize that egalitarian dialogue underpins the three actions
and works as a cross-feature. The research team has the
responsibility of ensuring that the functioning procedures
and protocols of the Advisory Committee, working groups,
and plenary meetings are transparent. Furthermore, there
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 5
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
are mechanisms to ensure that they can be improved during
the research project, taking advantage of the contributions
of the users’ views. Diversity is crucial to developing these
actions successfully.
Designing the Creation of the Advisory
Committee
The Advisory Committee of a research project implies the
creation of a group of individuals who represent the communities
studied. For instance, if a study focuses on the psychological
effects of consuming alcohol during adolescence, the Advisory
Committee should include young people with this problem
to better approach the reality and to attain understanding
and potential solutions. These committees usually have two
representatives of the study group who interact with researchers
on the basis of an equalitarian dialogue, accomplishing the
postulates of the CM. The representatives bring their knowledge
to the research process, and they can review the research guides
and reports, questionnaires for the fieldwork, and other materials.
It is important to emphasize that they actively contribute to
transforming and improving the initial situation of the vulnerable
group. The role of the Advisory Committee in the evaluation
process is crucial to achieving a social impact since it is composed
of representatives of the study groups, and it can play a role in ex
ante,in itinere, or ex post stages of research. The methodologies
for collecting their views about social impact evaluation can be
quantitative and qualitative.
Defining Working Groups
Science requires a research background from several fields to
advance knowledge. Interdisciplinarity has grown worldwide,
and it is common to collaborate between disciplines at the
international, national, or regional level. In the case of the
CM, research can include operational subgroups o focus on
particular topics or tasks. For example, in a research project
approaching the psychological impact of the use of technologies
in adulthood, the working groups could include the fields of
psychology, communication, sociology, and/or adult education.
Each of the subgroups works fluently and can have diverse
responsibilities during the research process. Volunteers who
are experts in specific domains can participate in them. The
Advisory Committee and coordination research team discuss the
advancements and/or proposals of the working groups. The role
of the working groups in the social impact assessment is mainly
in itinere since they are operative mainly during the research
process. The communication flow with the Advisory Committee
is one of the most important aspects for reviewing and mitigating
potential problems that can reduce social impact of research. As
in the case of the Advisory Committee, the methods to capture
insights regarding social impact evaluation can be quantitative
and qualitative.
Planning Plenary Meetings
The plenary meetings include all research members in a forum
that can be addressed in ways to achieve social impact, evaluate
the utility of research methods or design dissemination strategies,
among other issues. The Advisory Committee receives the results
of the plenary meetings to assess them and evaluate whether they
require further improvements. Furthermore, at the end of the
project the research team organizes a final conference addressed
to stakeholders and end users. The aim is to engage all of the
agents in a dialogue that includes the social impact assessment of
the research results. In the case of psychological research, the final
conference can have patients as speakers, presenting the benefits
of a study together with researchers. Sometimes, these speakers
are members of the Advisory Committee, and as occurs in the
case of the working groups, the flow between the members of the
plenary meetings and the Advisory Committee is a very relevant
dimension of the communicative organization of research. The
timing, planning, and flexibility of the organization of the plenary
meetings depend on the identification of emerging needs during
the research process.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF THE CM USED
IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
ACHIEVING SOCIAL IMPACT
There are three moments at which social impact assessment
occurs (ex ante,in itinere, and ex post), and the actions of
the CM can play different roles in each of them. Ex ante
evaluation of social impact is when potential (not real) social
impact is evaluated, and it is the most challenging one. During
the implementation of research, that is, in itinere, it is possible
to identify possible mistakes with regard to social impact and
to mitigate them. Once the research finishes, social impact
evaluation can also be undertaken on an ex post basis. In this
section, we illustrate through two selected cases (Denzin and
Lincoln, 2011) how CM reaches remarkable levels of social
impact in psychological research. These cases provide relevant
details to inspire other researchers develop studies applying MC
to achieve social impact in psychological research.
Illustrative Case 1: The CHIPE Project
The EU-funded research project “Children’s Personal
Epistemologies: Capitalizing Children’s and Families’ Knowledge
in Schools Towards Effective Teaching and Learning” (García-
Carrión, 2013-2015) provided relevant results for improving
children’s cognitive and social development, and the use of the
CM was particularly important to evaluating the social impact
in itinere. The project part of actions help citizens to succeed
in education for subsequent access to the labor market and full
participation in society. On the one hand, it focuses on a better
understanding of the role of personal epistemology in schools
that contributes to developing and consolidating innovative
educational practices in education systems. On the other hand,
the enhancement of effective teaching and learning in dialogic
learning environments lays the foundation for providing people
with more and better skills and competencies.
The researchers planned and designed the interventions in
dialogue with the teachers, students, and family members from
the beginning to the end of the project (codes ULA and EEL,
Table 1). Furthermore, they were involved in regular meetings
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 6
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
conducted at the university, as well as in their homes and
communities. Sharing these dialogues enabled the researchers to
“find ways of producing meaningful, accessible, and evocative
research to understand people’s experience intersubjectively”
(García-Carrión, 2015, p. 918). That illustrated the impact of
CM drawing on the DIH postulate, in order to generate dialogic
knowledge (Table 1). Ultimately, children engaged in higher
order interactions (Hargreaves and García-Carrión, 2016) and
developed solidarity-based relationships in classrooms where
they felt valued and included (Villardón-Gallego et al., 2018). The
implementation of the CM allowed for assessing the social impact
during the whole research process, enabling improvements to
expand it. This is also a remarkable example of how CM enables
individuals to show their nature as transformative social agents
(code ITA,Table 1).
The CM was used with different techniques, for instance,
participant observations in the classrooms that evaluated
successful educational performances, as well as interviews with
students, families, teachers, and other community members.
The use of those techniques are aligned with the CM
assumptions summarized in Table 1 (in particular, CR,CS,
DIH, and DK). The research team participated actively in
classroom activities. At the end of each session, the researcher
discussed the observations with the teacher and the volunteers –
whenever it was possible – to also include their perspectives
and impressions; that is, the participants played an active
part in the entire research process. The results of their
participation and of being involved in the transformation and
educational impact that the execution of Successful Educational
Actions had for the students are evidenced through the
project, families, and volunteers becoming active members
of the school and taking responsibility for the children’s
education; for example, one of them played an active role as a
governor as a direct result of participating in interactive groups
after the research.
According to the European Commission summary publication
of results, the “CHIPE outcomes included improved academic
achievement, especially in economically deprived areas,” and
“The project team concluded that a pupil-focused dialogic
environment improves academic achievement, produces
complex linguistic constructs and encourages students to draw
upon their knowledge. Furthermore, the technique was seen to
produce discussion about moral, taboo and/or difficult topics,
and yielded positive social relationships.”
Illustrative Case 2: MEMO4LOVE Project
The incorporation of participants’ voices throughout the process,
which is characteristic of the CM, is innovative in psychological
studies of memory since, in studies related to memory quality,
it is common for participants to write their memories but
exceptional that the participants themselves create a dialogue of
their written memories. The written record of dialogue provides
a finer interpretation of the interpretation itself. On the one
hand, it allows the researcher to better understand the quality
of memory, which means more details. On the other hand, the
participant is more aware of the meaning and impact of the
intervention in question.
The CM starts from the premise that participants in research
are transforming agents since, through reflection, we produce
our own practices, and we are able to intervene and transform
social structures (Table 1). In this sense, MEMO4LOVE involved
families, teachers, and students from the beginning of the
research, providing contact with researchers through informative
sessions, at which they could ask questions of the researchers.
Similarly, following the CM, an advisory council was created
with expert researchers who were not part of the research team,
distinguished people at the international level of NGOs, and
people from the administration and education fields, all of whom
had participated since the beginning of the investigation.
In the project, questionnaires were designed that were
validated by the adolescents themselves. That is, the principle
of equal dialogue is present in all phases of the project. The
project details that the relevance of the inclusion of the voices had
two causes: first, because this interpretive approach is scarce in
the area when assessing the impact of prevention programs; and
second, because existing scales measuring gender-based violence
victimization and gender violence attitudes do not contemplate
the most common types of first sexual-affective relationships
among adolescents, which are sporadic, and in which much
violence occurs (Puigvert et al., 2019).
The project has been consolidated with the participants,
results have been jointly developed, and proposals for
interventions have been modeled. Similarly, the issue of
consent in sex-affective relationships was incorporated into the
project – a topic that was in the public debate – and due to the
agents’ concerns, it was decided to add this concept to the study.
That is, the principles of the CM in allowing the addressing of
social problems and detailing the transforming factors caused the
topics addressed in the research to have very much in mind the
social context of the moment, and together with the participants,
they adapted to the new realities, as the MEMO4LOVE project
also did. From active participation in the research, agents knew
the actions and could disseminate them in their contexts. That is,
there was greater dialogue and greater interpretation, creating a
greater sense and meaning of research in their lives.
One of the results of this line of research was the contribution
entitled “Reconstruction of Autobiographical Memories of
Violent Sexual-Affective Relationships through Scientific
Reading on Love. A Psycho-Educational Intervention to Prevent
Gender Violence” (Racionero-Plaza et al., 2018). With regard to
the CM, it is explained that, before participants were involved
in the study, the researchers informed them about the research,
and they completed written informed consent forms. Research
participants had time to read the consent form and to ask
questions of the researchers. Explanations were provided by
the researchers when necessary. The information provided
on the consent form explained the objective of the study, the
voluntary nature of participation, the possibility of withdrawing
from the study at any time, the procedure to collect the data,
the materials and measures to be used, and the anonymity and
privacy statements. Since the article describes the methodological
perspective of the research, it allows for adapting the focus to
the needs of the participants, as well as bringing research closer
to social reality.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 7
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
The reading of the book generated such an impact among
the participants that, once they read the book and engaged in
dialogic relationships with the researchers, they asked to hold a
meeting to deepen their understanding of the topic. Following
the principle of the CM of responding to the social needs that
arose, a focus group was conducted at the same time, and to
adapt the research to the needs of the participants, the ethical
codes of the research are very present. The same article reflects
how the participants reflected on the relationship with or without
violence, and as a result of this dialogue, a participant decided to
end a current relationship.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this article has been to provide an overview of the
impact assessment methods in psychological research and the
relevance that the CM has in this field.
The analysis demonstrates that, although scientific impact
has played a key role in the impact assessment of psychological
research, the concerns and contributions regarding how to
measure social impact have increased over the years. To this end,
the following points are crucial. First, it is important to consider
the diversity of voices that can participate in impact evaluation
processes, in an effort to advance toward the co-creation or co-
production of psychological knowledge. Second, CM emerges as
a useful methodology to contribute to social impact assessments
in psychological research. Third, the underlying postulates and
the concrete strategies of the CM create a research environment
that facilitates the serving of society. The illustrative cases in
psychological research provide evidence of the implementation
of the CM in this field. Psychological research plays a crucial
role in the improvement of societies, and the use of the CM
has the potential to increase the social impact of psychology.
In doing so, not only can the gap between science and society
can be reduced, but it also is possible to open new horizons to
achieve more and better psychological research that continues to
improve people’s lives.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The datasets generated for this study are available on request to
the corresponding author.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
GR-S, JD-P, RC, and TM-F made substantial contributions to
the conception of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or
interpretation of the data for the work, drafted the work or
revised it critically for important intellectual content, provided
approval for publication of the content, and agreed to be
accountable for all of the aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the
work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
REFERENCES
APA, (n.d.). Impact. APA and APA Services, Inc. Strategic Plan. Available
online at: https://www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan/impact-apa-strategic-
plan.pdf (accessed June 1, 2019).
Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization. Politics,
Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge, MA: Polity
Press.
Bromme, R., and Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of
science. Educ. Psychol. 49, 59–69. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
Bruner, J. (2012). What psychology should study. Int. J. Educ. Psychol. 1, 5–13.
doi: 10.17583/ijep.2012.179
Cabré-Olivé, J., Flecha, R., Ionescu, V., Pulido, C., and Sordé-Martí, T. (2017).
Identifying the relevance of research goals through collecting citizens’. Voices
on Social Media. Int. Multidiscip. J. Soc. Sci. 6, 70–102. doi: 10.17583/rimcis.
2017.2652
Castanedo, J. M., and Capllonch, M. (2018). Participación de familias en Educación
Física. Qual. Res. Educ. 7, 304–334. doi: 10.17583/qre.2018.3603
Chomsky, N. (1996). Power and Prospects. London: Pluto Press.
Davidson, G., Sanson, A., and Gridley, H. (2000). Australian psychology and
Australia’s indigenous people: existing and emerging narratives. Aust. Psychol.
35, 92–99. doi: 10.1080/00050060008260330
Davies, S., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, J. L., and Duensing, S. (2008).
Discussing dialogue: perspectives on the value of science dialogue events
that do not inform policy. Public Underst Sci 18, 338–353. doi: 10.1177/
0963662507079760
Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Díez-Palomar, J., Sanmamed, A. F. F., García-Carrión, R., and Molina-Roldán, S.
(2018). Pathways to Equitable and Sustainable Education through the Inclusion
of Roma Students in Learning Mathematics. Sustainability 10, 2191. doi: 10.
3390/su10072191
European Commission, (2010). Conclusions: ‘Science Against Poverty’. Paper
presented at the Segovia Conference, La Granja, 8-9 April 2010. Available
at: www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Presidencia%20Europea/Ficheros/
Conferencia_Ciencia_contra_la_pobreza.pdf (accessed January 2, 2020).
European Commission, (2011). . Added Value of Research, Innovation and Science.
MEMO/11/520,19 July. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
European Commission, (2015). Ex-post Evaluation of Science in Society in FP7.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission, (2017). Applying Relevance-Assessing Methodologies to
Horizon 2020. Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
European Commission, (2018). Monitoring the Impact of EU Framework
Programmes. Exper Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union.
Flecha, R. (2000). Sharing Words. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Flecha, R. (2014). Using mixed methods from a communicative orientation:
researching with grassroots roma. J. Mix Methods Res. 8, 245–254. doi: 10.1177/
1558689814527945
Flecha, R., and Soler, M. (2014). Communicative methodology: successful
actions and dialogic democracy. Curr. Sociol. 62, 232–242. doi: 10.1177/
0011392113515141
Flecha, R., Soler-Gallart, M., and Sordé-Martí, T. (2015). Social impact:
europe must fund social sciences. Nature 528, 193. doi: 10.1038/528
193d
García-Carrión, R. (2013-2015). Children’s Personal Epistemologies: Capitalizing
Children’s and families’ Knowledge in Schools Towards Effective Teaching and
Learning (Marie Curie Actions, FP7). Brussels: European Commission. doi:
10.1038/528193d
García-Carrión, R. (2015). What the dialogic literary gatherings did for me: The
personal narrative of an 11-Year-old boy in a rural community in England.
Qual. Inq. 21, 913–919. doi: 10.1177/1077800415614305
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
fpsyg-11-00286 March 2, 2020 Time: 14:42 # 8
Redondo-Sama et al. Impact Assessment and Communicative Methodology
Gómez, A. (2015). “Communicative methodology of research and evaluation. a
success story,” in Education as Social Construction: Contributions to Theory,
Research and Practice, eds T. Dragonas, K. J. Gergen, S. McNamee, and E.
Tseliou, (Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications/WorldShare Books),
297–314.
Gómez, A. (2017). “Communicative methodology and social impact,” in
Qualitative Inquiry in Neoliberal Times, eds N. K. Denzin, and M. D. Giardina,
(New York: Routledge), 166–178. doi: 10.4324/9781315397788-12
Gómez, A., Padrós, M., Ríos, O., Mara, L., and Pukepuke, T. (2019). Reaching social
impact through communicative methodology. Researching with rather than on
vulnerable populations: the Roma case. Front. Educ. 4:9. doi: 10.3389/feduc.
2019.00009
Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., and Flecha, R. (2011). Critical communicative
methodology: informing real social transformation through research. Qual. Inq.
17, 235–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800410397802
Gómez, J., Latorre, A., Sánchez, M., and Flecha, R. (2006). Metodología
Comunicativa Crítica. Barcelona: Hipatia.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the
Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hargreaves, L., and García-Carrión, R. (2016). Toppling teacher domination of
primary classroom talk through dialogic literary gatherings in England. FORUM
58, 15–25. doi: 10.15730/forum.2016.58.1.15
Howe, C., and Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across
four decades of research. Camb. J. Educ. 43, 325–356. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.
2013.786024
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How we Use Language to Think Together.
London: Routledge.
Moreno-Poyato, A. R., Delgado-Hito, P., Leyva-Moral, J. M., Casanova-Garrigós,
G., and Montesó-Curto, P. (2019). Implementing evidence based practices on
the therapeutic relationship in inpatient psychiatric care: a participatory action
research. J. Clin. Nurs. 28, 1614–1622. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14759
Puigvert, L. (2014). Preventive socialization of gender violence moving forward
using the communicative methodology of research. Qual. Inq. 20, 839–843.
doi: 10.1177/1077800414537221
Puigvert, L., Flecha, R., Racionero-Plaza, S., and Sordé-Martí, T. (2019).
Socioneuroscience and its contributions to conscious versus unconscious
volition and control. The case of gender violence prevention. AIMS Neurosci.
6, 204–218. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.3.204
Pulido, C., Redondo-Sama, G., Sordé-Martí, T., and Flecha, R. (2018). Social impact
in social media: a new method to evaluate the social impact of research. PLoS
One 13:e0203117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203117
Racionero, S., and Padrós, M. (2010). The dialogic turn in educational psychology.
Rev. Psicodidáctica 15, 143–162. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.808
Racionero-Plaza, S., Ugalde-Lujambio, L., Puigvert, L., and Aiello, E. (2018).
Reconstruction of autobiographical memories of violent sexual-affective
relationships through scientific reading on love: a psycho-educational
intervention to prevent gender violence. Front. Psychol. 9:1996. doi: 10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.01996
Radstake, M., van den Heuvel-Vromans, E., Jeucken, N., Dortmans, K., and Nelis,
A. (2009). Societal dialogue needs more than public engagement. Science &
society series on convergence research. EMBO Rep. 10, 313–317. doi: 10.1038/
embor.2009.43
Rau, H., Goggins, G., and Fahy, F. (2018). From invisibility to impact:
recognising the scientrific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary
sustainability research. Res. Policy 47, 266–276. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.
11.005
Ravenscroft, J., Liakata, M., Clare, A., and Duma, D. (2017). Measuring scientific
impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and
proposed improvements. PLoS One 12:e0173152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.
0173152
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., et al.
(2017). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political
impact of social sciences and humanities research. Res. Evaluat. 27, 298–308.
doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvx025
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schütz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Soler, M., and Flecha, R. (2010). From Austin’s speech acts to communicative
acts. Perspectives from Searle, Habermas and CREA. Signos 43, 363–375. doi:
10.4067/S0718-09342010000400007
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., and Branchaft, B. (eds) (1994). The Intersubjective
Perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Villardón-Gallego, L., García-Carrión, R., Yáñez-Marquina, L., and Estévez, A.
(2018). Impact of the interactive learning environments in children’s prosocial
behavior. Sustainability 10, 2138. doi: 10.3390/su10072138
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2020 Redondo-Sama, Díez-Palomar, Campdepadrós and Morlà-Folch.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8March 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 286
