i need notes on societal impact of IT ...PLZ..help me in this..its urgent
Answers
Nowadays, most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries spend approximately 2 to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) on research and development (R&D) each year (Martin, 2007). Until the 1970s, there was never any doubt in the minds of policymakers that public investment in R&D also would have a positive impact on areas such as communication; the way we work; our housing, clothes, and food; our methods of transportation; and even the length and quality of life itself (Burke, Bergman, & Asimov, 1985). Many countries worked on the principle that “science is the genie that will keep the country competitive, but the genie needs to be fed” (Stephan, 2012, p. 10). In the United States, Bush (1945) argued that any investment in science is inherently good for the society. However, from the late 1980s onward, the empty public coffers increasingly compelled science to account for its accomplishments in the form of internal assessment (otherwise known as peer review) and indicators to measure scientific output and scientific impact (the buzzwords being audit society and new public management). The only aspect of interest when measuring impact was the impact of research on academia and scientific knowledge. The assumption was that a society could derive the most benefit from science conducted at the highest level.
Since the 1990s, there has been a visible trend away from automatic trust in the validity of this assumption; the expectation is that evidence shall be provided to demonstrate the value of science for society (Martin, 2011). What are the results of public investment in research from which society actually derives a benefit (European Commission, 2010)? The scope of research evaluations becomes broader (Hanney, Packwood, & Buxton, 2000; van der Meulen & Rip, 2000) as the societal products (outputs), societal use (societal references), and societal benefits (changes in society) of research come into scope (Mostert, Ellenbroek, Meijer, van Ark, & Klasen, 2010). “What one expects today is measures of the impact of science on human lives and health, on organizational capacities of firms, institutional and group behaviour, on the environment, etc.” (Godin & Doré, 2005, p. 5). Society can reap the benefits of successful research studies only if the results are converted into marketable and consumable products (e.g., medicaments, diagnostic tools, machines, and devices) or services (Lamm, 2006). For example, under the Science and Technology for America's Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness and Science program (STAR METRICS; https://www.starmetrics.nih.gov/), the effect of federal research grants and contracts on outcomes such as employment and economic activity is traced (Frodeman & Briggle, 2012; Macilwain, 2010).
Primarily, the benefits from basic research have been under scrutiny since the 1990s (Salter & Martin, 2001; C.H.L. Smith, 1997) because perhaps “the importance of fundamental research for … society is not fully understood” (Petit, 2004, p. 192). “Research that is highly cited or published in top journals may be good for the academic discipline but not for society” (Nightingale & Scott, 2007, p. 547). R. Smith (2001), for example, suggests that “scientists would think of the original work on apoptosis (programmed cell death) as high quality, but 30 years after it was discovered there has been no measurable impact on health” (p. 528). In contrast, there also is research—for example, “the cost effectiveness of different incontinence pads” (R. Smith, 2001, p. 528)—that is certainly not seen as high quality by the scientific community but has immediate and important societal impact (Nightingale & Scott, 2007).