The Canada foundation for innovation's outcome measurement study: A pioneering approach to research evaluation

Research Evaluation

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 333-345

  Tremblay, Ghislaine ^a   Zohar, Sandra ^a   Bravo, Juliana ^a   Potsepp, Peter ^b   Barker, Meg ^c  

^a Canada Foundation for Innovation   (Canada)

^b CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH   (Canada)

^c Agency Ste Cécile Innovation Science and Technology   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951777472     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820210X12809191250960     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. AUCC, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada 2006. Measuring success in relation to federal investments in university research: an AUCC discussion paper. Ottawa. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
2. AUCC 2008. Momentum: The 2008 report on university research and knowledge mobilization. Ottawa. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
3. Butler, Linda 2007. Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 565-574.
4. CAHS, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences 2009. Making an Impact: A Preferred Framework and Indicators to Measure Returns on Investment in Health Research. Panel on Return on Investment in Health Research, CAHS, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
5. CFI, Canada Foundation for Innovation 2008. Performance, Evaluation, Risk, and Audit Framework (PERAF). Ottawa. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
6. Donovan, Claire 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 585-597.
7. Donovan, Claire 2008. The Australian research quality framework: a live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. In New Directions for Evaluation: Reforming the Evaluation of Research, eds C L S Coryn and M Scriven, 118, Summer, pp. 47-60.
8. Georghiou, Luke 2007. What lies beneath: avoiding the risk of under-evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(10), December, 743-752.
9. Godin, Benoît 2005. The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework. Montreal: Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper No. 30.
10. Grant, Jonathan, Philipp-Bastian Brutscher, Susan Kirk, Linda Butler and Steven Wooding 2009. Capturing Research Impacts: a Review of International Practice. Prepared by RAND Europe for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Cambridge, UK: RAND Corporation.
11. Jordan, Gretchen and George G Teather 2007. Introduction to special issues on evaluating portfolios of research technology and development programs: challenges and good practice. Research Evaluation, 16(3), September, 150-151.
12. Martin, Ben R and Puay Tang 2007. The Benefits from Publicly Funded Research. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper No. 161. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
13. McDaniel, Susan A 2006. Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators in Social Context. Presented at OECD Conference Blue Sky II: What Indicators for Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in the 21st Century, September.
14. Michelson, Evan S 2006. Approaches to research and development performance assessment in the United States: an analysis of recent evaluation trends. Science and Public Policy, 33(8), October, 546-560.
15. Moed, Henk F. 2007. The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 575-583.
16. NSF, National Science Foundation 2009. Report of the Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment, FY 2009.
17. OECD 2007. Science, technology and innovation indicators in a changing world: Responding to policy needs. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
18. OECD 2008. Science, technology and industry outlook. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
19. Oros, Cheryl J, Henry M Doan, Djime' D Adoum and Robert C MacDonald 2007. Portfolio review expert panel (PREP) process: a tool for accountability and strategic planning to meet research goals. Research Evaluation, 16(3), September, 157-167.
20. Rank, Dennis and Janet Halliwell 2008. Canada Foundation for Innovation: OMS 2008 Summary Report. Ottawa: KPMG and CFI. Available at: , last accessed 1 November 2010.
21. Rons, Nadine, Arlette De Bruyn and Jan Cornelis 2008. Research evaluation per discipline: a peer-review method and its outcomes. Research Evaluation, 17(1), March, 45-57.
22. Rossi, Peter H, Mark W Lipsey and Howard E Freeman 2004. Evaluation: a Systematic Approach, 7th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Srivastava, Christina Viola, Nathaniel Deshmukh Towery and Brian Zuckerman 2007. Challenges and opportunities for research portfolio analysis, management, and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 16(3), September, 152-156.
24. Wixted, Brian and J Adam Holbrook 2008. Conceptual Issues in the Evaluation of Formal Research Networks. CPROST Report 2008-01. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology, Simon Fraser University.