IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i4p251-261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of RT&D: from ‘prescriptions for justifying’ to ‘user-oriented guidance for learning’

Author

Listed:
  • Steve Montague
  • Rodolfo Valentim

Abstract

The measurement and evaluation of research, technology and development (RT&D) has gone through phases over the past 50 years. Over time, high-level measures such as total expenditures on R&D, overall citations and patent production have given way to more contextualized metrics recognizing the inherent differences in innovation subject areas and the need to show mission achievement. This article shows how recently proposed Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS) metrics were adapted to help frame a case study conducted by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (CCSRI). Early results suggest that the framework provides a useful structure to display both a hierarchy of results focused on mission goals, and to build an attributable RT&D and innovation story over time. With this work and other recent developments, evaluation appears poised to go beyond retrospective justification and to become a fully legitimate part of strategic learning for RT&D initiatives. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Steve Montague & Rodolfo Valentim, 2010. "Evaluation of RT&D: from ‘prescriptions for justifying’ to ‘user-oriented guidance for learning’," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 251-261, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:251-261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X12827366906562
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Barbara L Riley & Alison Kernoghan & Lisa Stockton & Steve Montague & Jennifer Yessis & Cameron D Willis, 2018. "Using contribution analysis to evaluate the impacts of research on policy: Getting to ‘good enough’," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 16-27.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:251-261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.