IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v25y2016i1p62-69..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dealing with the complexity of evaluating knowledge transfer strategies: Guiding principles for developing valid instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Mathieu-Joël Gervais
  • Caroline Marion
  • Christian Dagenais
  • François Chiocchio
  • Nathalie Houlfort

Abstract

While there is an abundance of theoretical literature on knowledge transfer strategies, the evidence on their effectiveness remains limited. There is a need to support researchers and practitioners seeking to strengthen the validity of the instruments they develop to evaluate knowledge transfer strategies. Based on an analysis of the literature in three fields of research—health, human and social sciences, and programme evaluation—we propose five guiding principles for this purpose. We also discuss critical issues pertaining to the practices involved in evaluating knowledge transfer strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathieu-Joël Gervais & Caroline Marion & Christian Dagenais & François Chiocchio & Nathalie Houlfort, 2016. "Dealing with the complexity of evaluating knowledge transfer strategies: Guiding principles for developing valid instruments," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 62-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:62-69.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv034
    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. Hu, Xiaojun & Rousseau, Ronald, 2018. "A new approach to explore the knowledge transition path in the evolution of science & technology: From the biology of restriction enzymes to their application in biotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 842-857.

    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:25:y:2016:i:1:p:62-69.. 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.