IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v7y1998i3p159-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility evaluation of academic research: six basic propositions

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Hemlin

Abstract

A review of the literature and three case studies in housing research resulted in a framework of six propositions as to how to assess academic research utility. First, it can be measured directly and indirectly. Secondly, utility is dependent not only on academic research supply of knowledge and technology, but equally importantly on demand from industry and the public sector. Thirdly, research utility should be viewed in short- and long-term perspectives, which makes assessment dependent on time intervals. Fourthly, the framework for evaluating research utility must take into consideration a number of differences with respect to academic research (between applied and basic research, between research areas, between disciplines within an area). Fifthly, a framework must consider the differences in user groups. Finally, the transmission of knowledge from the academic setting to industry and the public sector is predominantly an interactive process carried out by individuals. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Hemlin, 1998. "Utility evaluation of academic research: six basic propositions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 159-165, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:7:y:1998:i:3:p:159-165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rev/7.3.159
    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. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.

    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:7:y:1998:i:3:p:159-165. 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.