If robert merton said it, it must be true: A citation analysis in the field of performance measurement

Evaluation

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 7-19

  Lindgren, Lena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

bibliometrics; citation counts; evidence; performance measurement; research impact

Indexed keywords

EID: 79551561502     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1356389010389908     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Batterham RW (1994) How can we Argue with Performance Indicators? An Analysis of the Sources of Power and Dysfunctions in the Use of Performance Indicators. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Institute of Education.
2. Bernstein DJ (1999) Comments on Perrin's effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 85-93.
3. Blalock AB (1999) Evaluation research and the performance management movement. Evaluation 5(2): 117-49.
4. Borgman CL, and Furner J. (2002) Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. In: Cronin B (ed.)Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36: 3-72.
5. Bornmann L., and Daniel HD (2006) What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behaviour. Journal of Documentation 64(1): 45-80.
6. Bouckaert G., and Balk W. (1991) Public productivity measurement: diseases and cures. Public Productivity and Management Review 15(2): 229-35.
7. Bouckaert G., and Pollitt C. (2004) Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Brunsson K. (2000) Det går inte att styra med resultat (You can't manage by results). Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift 103(3): 235-41.
9. Bryman A. (2008) Social Research Methods, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Campbell DT (1979) Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning 2: 67-90.
11. Cronin B. (2005) The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and its Rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
12. Dahler-Larsen P. (2003) Det politiske i evaluering. Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy 1: 1-12.
13. De Bruijin H. (2002a) Managing Performance in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.
14. De Bruijin H. (2002b) Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(7): 578-94.
15. Donaldson SI, Christie CA, and Mark MW (eds) (2009) What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16. Drummond MF (1991) Output measurement for resource allocation decisions in health care. In: McGuire Aet al.(eds) Providing Health Care: The Economics of Alternative Systems of Finance and Delivery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Elliot J. (2002) The paradox of educational reform in the evaluatory state: implications for teacher education. Prospects 32(3): 273-87.
18. Evaluation (2010) Special issue: evaluating public service organizations, 17(1).
19. Feller I. (2002) Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation 23(4): 435-52.
20. Fitz-Gibbon CT (2002) Evaluation in an age of indicators. Evaluation 8(1): 140-8.
21. Fredriksen LF, Hansen F. (2003) The agora and the role of research evaluation. Evaluation 9(2): 149-72.
22. Ginsberg PE (1984) The dysfunctional side effects of quantitative indicator production. Evaluation and Program Planning 7: 1-12.
23. Hargreaves A. (2003) Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity. New York: Teachers' College Press.
24. Hatry HP (1999) Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
25. Heberger AE, Christie CA, and Alkin MC (2010) A bibliometric analysis of the academic influences of and on evaluation theoretists' published works. American Journal of Evaluation 31(1): 24-44.
26. HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council for England (online). URL (consulted May 2010): www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/ref/about.
27. Hood C., and Peters G. (2004) The middle aging of new public management: into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration 14(3): 267-82.
28. Jacobsson B., and Sundström G. (2001) Resultat utan lärande? Erfarenheter från tre decennier av resultatstyrning (Results without learning: Experiences from three decades of management by results). Stockholm: Score.
29. Johnsen Å. (2005) What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement in public policy and management? Public Money and Management (Jan.): 9-17.
30. Johnston R.,et al.(2002) Good enough performance measurement: a trade-off between activity and action. Journal of the Operational Research Society 53(3): 256-62.
31. Joyce PG (1997) Using performance for budgeting: a new beat, or is it the same old tune? New Directions for Evaluation 75(fall): 45-62.
32. Krogstrup HK (2004) The old philosopher and the teenager who left the setee: evaluation in time of new public management. European Evaluation Society, Berlin, Oct.
33. Larsson S. (2009a) An emerging economy of publications and citations. Nordisk Pedagogik 29: 29-52.
34. Larsson S. (2009b) A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education 32(1): 25-38.
35. Leeuw FL (1996) Unintended consequences of performance auditing. Evaluation Journal of Australasia 8(2): 29-35.
36. Lindgren L. (2001) The non-profit sector meets the performance management movement. Evaluation 7(3): 285-303.
37. Lindgren L. (2006) Utvärderingsmonstet: Kvalitets- och resultatmätning i den offentligasektorn (The evaluation monster: performance measurement in the public sector). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
38. Malmi T. (2001) Balanced scorecards in Finnish companies: a research note. Management Accounting Research 12: 207-20.
39. Mayne J, and Zapico-Goni E (eds) (1997) Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience. London: Transaction Publishers.
40. Merton RK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1(1): 894-904.
41. Mintzberg H. (1996) Managing government - governing management. Harvard Business Review (May-June): 75-83.
42. Modell S. (2001) Performance measurement and institutional processes: a study of managerial responses to public sector reform. Management Accounting Research 12(4): 437-64.
43. Newcomer C. (1997) Using performance measures to improve programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75(fall): 5-15.
44. Nørreklit H. (2000) The balance on the balanced scorecard: a critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research 11: 65-88.
45. Patton MQ (2001) Qualitative Methods in Research and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
46. Pawson R. (2002) Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. Evaluation 8(2): 157-81.
47. Perrin B. (1998a) Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation 19(3): 367-79.
48. Perrin B. (1998b) Performance measurement: does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston. American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 101-11.
49. Plantz C., Greenaway MT, and Hendricks M. (1997) Outcome measurement: showing results in the non-profit sector. New Directions for Evaluation 75(fall): 15-30.
50. Ridgeway VF (1956) Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative Science Quarterly 1: 240-7.
51. Rossi P., Lipsey MW, and Freeman HE (2004) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
52. Smith P. (1993) Outcome-related performance indicators and organizational control in the public sector. British Journal of Management 4: 135-51.
53. Smith P. (1995) On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration 18: 277-310.
54. Strathern M (ed.) (2000a) Audit Cultures: Antropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.
55. Strathern M. (2000b) The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26(3): 309-21.
56. Sundström G. (2004) Management by Measurement: Its Origin and Development in the Case of the Swedish State. Stockholm: Score.
57. Van Raan AFJ (2004) Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 59: 467-72.
58. Van Thiel S., and Leeuw FL (2002) The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review 25(3): 267-81.
59. Wikström C. (2005) Criterion-References Measurement for Educational Evaluation and Selection. Umeå: Ume̊ University, Dept of Educational Measurement.
60. Williams A. (1985) Performance measurement in the public sector: paving the road to hell? Arthur Young lecture 7, Dept of Accountancy, University of Glasgow.
61. Winston JA (1999) Performance Indicators: promises unmet. A response to Perrin. American Journal of Evaluation 20(1): 95-9.