IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i5p381-391.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the effects of a collaborative research funding scheme: An approach combining meta-evaluation and evaluation synthesis

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Good

Abstract

The Swiss Innovation Agency (CTI) has administrated its collaborative research funding scheme since the early 1980s. Between 1989 and 2002 the scheme was evaluated 14 times. In a study combining meta-evaluation and evaluation synthesis, we assessed these existing evaluations against a variety of criteria, including selected evaluation standards of the Swiss Evaluation Society. The meta-evaluation showed that the existing evaluations were mostly qualitative, internal and ex post and that evaluation practice at the CTI was episodic. The evaluations differed in quality, with most evaluation standards being fulfilled adequately to fairly well. The results of the meta-evaluation were central to the ensuing evaluation synthesis by giving information on the adequacy of the existing evaluations. The synthesis compiled the--mostly qualitative--results of the evaluations. Our study shows that there are patterns of outputs and outcomes in evidence across the evaluation studies that suggest that CTI funding is having an effect in terms of outputs and outcomes. But it also shows that there are gaps in the evidence base of the evaluation studies that make it difficult to come to more precise conclusions. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Good, 2012. "Assessing the effects of a collaborative research funding scheme: An approach combining meta-evaluation and evaluation synthesis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 381-391, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:5:p:381-391
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs026
    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. Arlette Jappe, 2020. "Professional standards in bibliometric research evaluation? A meta-evaluation of European assessment practice 2005–2019," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, April.

    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:21:y:2012:i:5:p:381-391. 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.