Performance measurement redux

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 435-452

  Feller, Irwin ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036891269     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1098-2140(02)00231-X     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Behn, R. (1995). Here comes performance assessment-and it might even be good for you. In A. Teich, et al. (Eds.), AAAS science and technology policy yearbook (pp. 257-264). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
2. Bernstein, D. (1999). Comments on Perrin's effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 85-93.
3. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Brainard, J. (2002). U.S. agencies look to interdisciplinary research. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 14.
5. Cozzens, S. (1997). The knowledge pool: Measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20, 77-89.
6. David, P. (1995). Difficulties in assessing research and development programs. In A. Teich, et al. (Eds.), AAAS science and technology policy yearbook (pp. 293-301). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7. David, P., Mowery, D., & Steinmueller, E. (1992). Analyzing the economic payoffs from basic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2, 73-90.
8. Feller, I. (1996). The determinants of research competitiveness among universities. In A. Teich (Ed.), Competitiveness in academic research. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
9. Feller, I. (2000). Social contracts and the impact of matching fund requirements on American research universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 83-89.
10. Feller, I. (2002). New organizations, old cultures. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 2002 Meeting, Boston, MA.
11. Gormley, W., & Weimer, D. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. (1994). Stresses on research and education at colleges and universities: Institutional and sponsoring agency responses. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Greenburg, D. (2001). Science, money and politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Guston, D. (2000). Between politics and science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
15. Hatry, H. (1989). Determining the effectiveness of government services. In J. Perry (Ed.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 469-482). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Lattuca, L. (2002). Creating interdisciplinarity. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
17. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29, 409-434.
18. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkages between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317-330.
19. Nasar, S. (1988). A beautiful mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
20. National Academy of Sciences. (1995a). Allocating federal funds for science and technology.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21. National Academy of Sciences. (1995b). Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. National Academy of Sciences. (2000). Experiments in international benchmarking of U.S. research fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. National Academy of Sciences. (2001). Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24. National Institutes of Health. (2002). Final FY2003 GPRA performance plan. Revised final FY2002 GPRA annual performance plan, and FY2002 GPRA annual performance report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Appendix 1.
25. National Research Council. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Newcomer, K. (2001). Tracking and probing program performance: Fruitful path or blind alley for evaluation professionals. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 337-341.
27. Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 367-379.
28. Pieters, R., & Baumgartner, H. (2002). Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 483-509.
29. Pratt, J.,& Zeckhauser, R. (1985). Principals and agents: An overview. In J. Pratt & R. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents (pp. 1-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30. Radin, B. (2002). The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: Square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 111-135.
31. Rhoades, G. (2000). Who's doing it right? Strategic activity in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 41-66.
32. Seife, C. (2002). Report backs collider and an expanded field. Science, 295, 783ff.
33. Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199-1235.
34. Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Interdisciplinary Ph.D. programming in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 445-455.
35. Wholey, J. (2001). Managing for results: Roles for evaluators in a new management era. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 343-347.
36. Wholey, J., & Hatry, H. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604-610.
37. Wilson, J. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
38. Winston, J. (1999). Performance indicators-promises unmet: A response to Perrin. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 95-99.