Assessing end-use relevance of public sector research organisations

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 73-87

  Lyall, Catherine ^a   Bruce, Ann ^a   Firn, John ^b   Firn, Marion ^b   Tait, Joyce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b Firn Crichton Roberts Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Public sector research; Research relevance; Societal impact

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; CONSTRAINT THEORY; DATA ACQUISITION; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; MANAGERS; PUBLIC POLICY; RELIABILITY; SAMPLING; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TAXATION;

PUBLIC SECTOR RESEARCH; RESEARCH RELEVANCE;

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH;

EID: 0346639297     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00090-8     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bechhofer F., Rayman-Bacchus L., et al. The dynamics of social science research exploitation. Scottish Affairs. 36:2001;124-155.
2. Caswill, C., 1994. Users and beneficiaries - a discussion paper. ESRC Mimeo.
3. Caulil G.F.V., Mombers C.A.M., et al. Scientometrics. 37(3):1996;433-444.
4. Faulkner, W., Senker, J., 1995. Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research in Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics and Parallel Computing. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
5. HM Treasury, 2002. Improving performance information. HM Treasury, London.
6. Molas-Gallart, J., Tang, P., et al., 1999. Assessing research impact on non-academic audiences. ESRC, Swindon.
7. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., et al., 2002. Measuring third stream activities. SPRU, Brighton.
8. NAO Comptroller and Auditor General, 2000. Good practice in performance reporting in executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. House of Commons, London.
9. NAO Comptroller and Auditor General, 2001. Modern policy-making: ensuring policies deliver value for money. National Audit Office, London.
10. Natural Resources and Environment, 2001a. Evaluation seminar series. Evaluation seminar. 1. Performance measurement, a seminar with John Mayne, Principal, Office of the Auditor-General, Canada. The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Agriculture Division.
11. Natural Resources and Environment, 2001b. Science, technology and innovation in NRE. The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
12. Richardson, A., Jackson, C., et al., 1990. Taking research seriously. Means of improving and assessing the use and dissemination of research. HMSO, London.
13. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002. The societal impact of applied health research - towards a quality assessment system. Council for Medical Sciences, Amsterdam.
14. Solesbury, W., 2002. Measuring value added in research. ARCISS, London.
15. Spaapen, J., Wamelink, F., 1999. The evaluation of university research: a method for the incorporation of the societal value of research. sci_Quest, Amsterdam.
16. Tait J., Williams R. Linear-plus model. Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness. Science and Public Policy. 26(2):1999;101-112.
17. van Weel C. Biomedical science matters for people - so its impact should be better assessed. The Lancet. 360:2002;1034-1035.
18. Weiss C.B. knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: creation, diffusion, utilization. 1(3):1980;381-404.
19. Weiss C.B. Policy research in the context of diffuse decision making. Journal of Higher Education. 53(6):1982;619-639.