IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v28y2019i4p344-354..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Junwen Luo
  • Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros
  • Stefan Kuhlmann

Abstract

Evaluation taking place within publicly funded research institutions (PRIs) has been practiced as a useful instrument to justify PRIs’ public funding and to provide evidence for their internal decision-making. The role of evaluation in organizational governance is well-acknowledged as being important in PRIs’ management practices. However, it has not attracted much attention from research evaluation scholars. In this article, we propose that evaluation mechanisms perform a balancing role in organizational governance of PRIs with respect to three main aspects: strategy, funding, and operation, where governance tensions often occur between different stakeholders. This research attempts to contribute to a better understanding of why and how evaluation helps to deal with such governance tensions by looking at three case studies, namely the Max Planck Society (MPG), the Helmholtz Association (HGF), both in Germany, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). We illustrate the circumstances and conditions in which evaluation mechanisms, where evaluation procedures and culture are institutionalized and stakeholders’ interactions are facilitated, help indeed to mitigate the governance tensions.

Suggested Citation

  • Junwen Luo & Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2019. "The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 344-354.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:4:p:344-354.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvz022
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jerald Hage & Gretchen Jordan & Jonathan Mote, 2007. "A theory-based innovation systems framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of research, part two: Macro indicators and policy interventions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 731-741, December.
    2. Karen Golden-Biddle & Hayagreeva Rao, 1997. "Breaches in the Boardroom: Organizational Identity and Conflicts of Commitment in a Nonprofit Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(6), pages 593-611, December.
    3. Anthony Arundel & Edward Lorenz & Bengt-Åke Lundvall & Antoine Valeyre, 2007. "How Europe's economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1175-1210, December.
    4. Raina, Rajeswari S., 2003. "Disciplines, institutions and organizations: impact assessments in context," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 185-211, November.
    5. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    6. Heinze, Thomas & Kuhlmann, Stefan, 2008. "Across institutional boundaries?: Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 888-899, June.
    7. Stefan de Jong & Katharine Barker & Deborah Cox & Thordis Sveinsdottir & Peter Van den Besselaar, 2014. "Understanding societal impact through productive interactions: ICT research as a case," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 89-102.
    8. Bryson, John M. & Patton, Michael Quinn & Bowman, Ruth A., 2011. "Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, February.
    9. Jakob Edler & Martin Berger & Michael Dinges & Abdullah Gök, 2012. "The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 167-182, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kiwon Lee & Suchul Lee, 2023. "Enhancing R&D Performance Management: A Case of R&D Projects in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-14, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Borrás, Susana & Laatsit, Mart, 2019. "Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 312-321.
    2. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    3. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Dirk Meissner & Sandrine Kergroach, 2021. "Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 197-222, February.
    5. Matthijs Janssen, 2016. "What bangs for your bucks? Assessing the design and impact of transformative policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 16-05, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Dec 2016.
    6. Claire Nauwelaers & Inger Midtkandal & Inmaculada Periañez Forte, 2014. "RIS3 Implementation and Policy Mixes. S3 Policy Brief Series n° 07/2014 September 2014," JRC Research Reports JRC91917, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. Janssen, Matthijs J., 2019. "What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 78-94.
    9. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    10. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    11. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    12. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    13. Soete, Luc & Verspagen, Bart & ter Weel, Bas, 2010. "Systems of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1159-1180, Elsevier.
    14. Önder, Ali Sina & Schweitzer, Sascha & Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2021. "Specialization, field distance, and quality in economists’ collaborations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    15. Arundel, Anthony & Casali, Luca & Hollanders, Hugo, 2015. "How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1271-1282.
    16. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    17. Mario Davide Parrilli, 2010. "Heterogeneous Social Capitals: A New Window of Opportunity for Local Economies," Working Papers 2010R06, Orkestra - Basque Institute of Competitiveness.
    18. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    19. Armanda Cetrulo & Dario Guarascio & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2020. "Anatomy of the Italian occupational structure: concentrated power and distributed knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(6), pages 1345-1379.
    20. Greta Hsu & Kimberly D. Elsbach, 2013. "Explaining Variation in Organizational Identity Categorization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 996-1013, August.

    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:28:y:2019:i:4:p:344-354.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.