IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v34y2007i10p681-690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the frontiers of evaluation of public-sector R&D programs

Author

Listed:
  • Irwin Feller

Abstract

Evident in recent requests by policy-makers for evidence about the effectiveness and impacts of public-sector R&D programs and associated calls for a science of science policy is a call for new and improved approaches to evaluation. The trend is towards ex ante questions directed at providing analytical frameworks, metrics or methodologies relevant to future decisions, rather than ex post questions related to whether programs are working or had worked. Evaluators thus confront an evolving research agenda consisting both of new questions and old questions asked with increased emphasis. Among these are: how to set priorities among and within fields of scientific and technological inquiry; how to effectively and equitably choose among competing performers and proposals; and how to aggregate and integrate findings relating to specific policies and programs into an overarching national innovation systems framework. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Irwin Feller, 2007. "Mapping the frontiers of evaluation of public-sector R&D programs," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(10), pages 681-690, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:10:p:681-690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234207X258996
    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. Bloch, Carter & Sørensen, Mads P. & Graversen, Ebbe K. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Schmidt, Evanthia Kalpazidou & Aagaard, Kaare & Mejlgaard, Niels, 2014. "Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-117.
    2. Tomas Havranek & Anna Sokolova, 2016. "Do Consumers Really Follow a Rule of Thumb? Three Thousand Estimates from 130 Studies Say "Probably Not"," Working Papers 2016/08, Czech National Bank.
    3. repec:elg:eechap:14395_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.

    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:scippl:v:34:y:2007:i:10:p:681-690. 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/spp .

    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.