IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v5y1995i1p45-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The patchwork of the Dutch evaluation system

Author

Listed:
  • Arie Rip
  • Barend J R van der Meulen

Abstract

In the Netherlands, an evaluation culture has evolved. Systematic evaluation, however, occurs only for strategic R&D programmes and innovation-oriented programmes, and as part of a quality-assurance system of academic research. Informal assessments and bottom-up evaluation activities are dominant in the Dutch approach. Science policy agencies have been interested in strategic changes in the research system, rather than in evaluation. They have also stimulated the development of an infrastructure for evaluation, rather than concentrating on assessing their own activities. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Arie Rip & Barend J R van der Meulen, 1995. "The patchwork of the Dutch evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 45-53, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:5:y:1995:i:1:p:45-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rev/5.1.45
    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. Van der Meulen, Barend, 1998. "Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 397-414, August.
    2. van der Meulen, Barend & Rip, Arie, 1998. "Mediation in the Dutch science system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 757-769, December.

    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:5:y:1995:i:1:p:45-53. 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.