Evaluation of RT&D: From 'prescriptions for justifying' to 'user-oriented guidance for learning'

Research Evaluation

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 251-261

  Montague, Steve ^a   Valentim, Rodolfo ^b  

^a Performance Management Network   (Canada)

^b Societe canadienne du cancer   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649755826     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820210X12827366906562     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bennett, C 1979. Analyzing impacts of extension programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration (ESC-57).
2. Bennett, Claude and Kay Rockwell 1995. Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP): an Integrated Approach to Planning and Evaluation. Nebraska, USA: Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service.
3. Burstein, H J 2003 Beyond tamoxifen - extending endocrine treatment for early-stage breast cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 1857-1859.
4. Carlson, Curtis R and William W Wilmot 2006. Innovation: The Five Disciplines for Creating What Customers Want. New York, USA: Crown Publishing Group.
5. Davison, Colleen M 2009. Knowledge translation: implications for evaluation. In New Directions for Evaluation, eds J M Ottoson and P Hawe, pp. 75-100. California, USA: Wiley.
6. Gault, Fred 2006. Innovation, Indicators and Policy: a Canadian Perspective, the Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Linking Research and Practice, SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference, September 2006.
7. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trow 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Goss, Paul et al 2005. Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA 17, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97(17), 7 September.
8. Jordan, Gretchen B 2010. A theory-based logic model for innovation policy and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 19(4), October, 263-273.
9. Kuhlmann, Stefan and Phillip Shapira 2001. Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation, School of Public Policy. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA, and the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research, Karlsruhe, Germany
10. Mansfield, Edwin, John Rapoport, Anthony Romeo, Samuel Wagner and George Beardsley 1977. Social and private rates of return from industrial innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), May, 221-240.
11. McDonald, Bron et al 2001. Introduction to Evaluation: Project Evaluation Training. Melbourne Victoria, Australia: Department Primary Industries, Victorian Government.
12. McLaughlin, John A and Gretchen Jordan 1999. Logic models: a tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), Spring, 65-72.
13. OEDC 2002. Frascati Manual. OECD. Panel on Return on Investment in Health Research 2009. Making and Impact: A Preferred Framework and Indicators to Measure Returns on Investment in Heath Research. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.
14. Patton, Michael Quinn 1997. Utilization-focused Evaluation: the New Century Text. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
15. Reed, J and Gretchen Jordan 2007. Using systems theory and logic models to define integrated outcomes and performance measures in multi-program settings, Research Evaluation, 16(3), September.
16. Rogers, Everett M 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, USA: Free Press.
17. Rosenberg, Nathan 1983. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Shodjai, Foad 1996. Science and Technology Indicators and a Catalog of Major S&T Indicators of Canada. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology (CPROST), Simon Fraser University.
19. Teather, George G and Steve Montague 1997. Performance measurement, management, and reporting for S&T organizations - an overview. Journal of Technology Transfer, 22(2), June, 5-12.
20. Wooding, Steven, Stephen Hanney, Martin Buxton and Jonathan Grant 2004. The Returns from Arthritis Research. Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe.