Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 61-72

  de Jong, Stefan P L ^a   van Arensbergen, Pleun ^a   Daemen, Floortje ^a   van der Meulen, Barend ^a   van den Besselaar, Peter ^b  

^a Rathenau Institute KNAW   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955387089     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876346     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Avermaete, T, H Coolen, R Docter et al 2010. Architecture and the Built Environment: Research in Context 2003-2009. Delft: TU Delft Architecture.
2. Bensing, J M, W M C M Caris-Verhallen, J Dekker et al 2004. Doing the right thing and doing it right: toward a framework for assessing the policy relevance of health services research. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(4), 604-612.
3. Bornmann, L and R Mutz 2011. Further steps towards an ideal method of measuring citation performance: the avoidance of citation (ratio) averages in field-normalization. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 228-230.
4. Bornmann, L, R Mutz and H D Daniel 2009. Do we need the H index and its variants besides standard bibliometric measures? Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1286-1289.
5. Buruma, Y 2007. Rechtswetenschap en rechtspraktijk. Nederlands Juristenblad, 17, 1043.
6. Butler, L 2007. Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 565-574.
7. Butler, L and M S Visser 2006. Extending citation analysis to nonsource items. Scientometrics, 66(2), 327-343.
8. Ca, T N 2009. Reaching out to society: Vietnamese universities in transition. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), March, 91-95
9. Callon, M, P Larédo, P Mustar et al 1992. Defining the strategic profile of research labs: the research compass card method. In Science and Technology in a Policy Context, ed. A F J van Raan. Leiden: DSWO Press.
10. Cliteur, P B 2000. Inleiding in het recht. Deventer; Kluwer.
11. Danish Council 2006. A Tool for Assessing Research Quality and Relevance. Copenhagen: Danish Council for Research Policy.
12. De Jong, S P L, B van der Meulen, J Spaapen and P van den Besselaar (forthcoming). Productive Interaction and Social Impact: a Literature Review.
13. De Jong, T M and D J M van der Voordt 2000. Criteria voor wetenschappelijk ontwerp. Available at , last accessed 28 October 2010.
14. Donovan, C 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 585-597.
15. Donovan, C 2008. The Australian Research Quality Framework: a live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), 47-60.
16. Donovan, C and L Butler 2007. Testing novel quantitative indicators of research 'quality', esteem and 'user engagement': an economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), December, 231-242.
17. Durieux, V and P A Gevenois 2010. Bibliometric indicators: quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255, 342-351.
18. ERiC 2010. Evaluating the Societal Relevance of Academic Research: a Guide. The Hague: ERiC.
19. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 1998. The endless transition: a 'Triple Helix' of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36, 203-208.
20. Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology 2007. Assessment of Research 2003-2006. Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology.
21. Franceschet, M 2010. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83(1), 243-258.
22. Franken, H 2008. Rechtsgeleerdheid in de rij der wetenschappen. Amsterdam: KNAW.
23. Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Nowotny et al 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
24. Göransson, B, R Maharajh and U Schmock 2009. New activities of universities in transfer and extension: multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), March, 157-164.
25. Grant, J, P B Brutscher, S Kirk et al 2009. Capturing Research Impacts. Cambridge: RAND Europe.
26. Gregersen, B, L T Linde and J G Rasmussen 2009. Linking between Danish universities and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), March, 151-156.
27. HEGG et al, Health Economics Research Group, Office of Health Economics and Rand Europe 2008. Medical Research: What's it Worth? Estimating the Economic Benefits from Medical Research in the UK. London: HEGG.
28. Herweijer, M 2003. Juridisch onderzoek. Available at , last accessed 4 December 2008.
29. Hessels, L K and H van Lente 2009. Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740-760.
30. Janssen, O, E van de Vliert and C Veenstra 1999. How task and person conflict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117-142.
31. KNAW 2005. Judging Research on its Merits: an Advisory Report by the Council for the Humanities and the Social Sciences Council. Amsterdam: KNAW.
32. KNAW 2010. Quality Assessment in the Design and Engineering Disciplines: a Systematic Framework. Advisory Report of the Council for Technical Sciences, Mathematics, Informatics, Physics, Astronomy and Chemistry. Amsterdam: KNAW.
33. Krücken, G, F Meier and A Müller 2009. Linkages to the civil society as 'leisure time activities'? Experiences at a German university. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), March, 139-144.
34. Kwakman, N J M 2005. Het gelijk van Knigge. Available at , last accessed 4 December 2008.
35. Lane, J E 2000. New Public Management. London: Routledge.
36. Larédo, P and P Mustar 2000. Laboratory activity profiles: an exploratory approach. Scientometrics, 47(3), 515-539.
37. Lepori, B 2006. Methodologies for the analysis of research funding and expenditure: from input to positioning indicators. Research Evaluation, 15(2), August, 133-143.
38. Lepori, B, R Barré and G Filliatreau 2008. New perspectives and challenges for the design and production of S&T indicators. Research Evaluation, 17(1), March, 33-44.
39. Leydesdorff, L and L Bornmann 2011. How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 217-229.
40. Martin, B, P Tang, M Morgan et al 2010. Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities: a European Scoping Project. Brighton: SPRU.
41. Merkx, F and P van den Besselaar 2008. Positioning indicators for cross-disciplinary challenges: the Dutch coastal defence research case. Research Evaluation, 17(1), March, 4-16.
42. Moed, H F 2005. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
43. Nature 2010. 465, 845-974.
44. Nederhof, A J 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: a review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-200.
45. Nederhof, A J, T N van Leeuwen and A F J van Raan 2010. Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration. Scientometrics, 83(2), 363-374.
46. Nightingale, P and A Scott 2007. Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 543-553.
47. Opthof, T and L Leydesdorff 2010. Caveats for the journal and field normalizations in the CWTS ('Leiden') evaluations of research performance. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3).
48. Pålsson, C M, B Göransson and C Brundenius 2009. Vitalizing the Swedish university system: implementation of the 'third mission'. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), March, 145-150.
49. Power, M 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. QANU 2002. Onderzoeksbeoordeling Rechtsgeleerdheid. Utrecht: VSNU.
51. QANU 2007. Mid-term Research Assessment Architecture and Building Science. Utrecht: VSNU.
52. Schubert, T 2009. Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research - boon or bane? Research Policy, 38, 1225-1234.
53. Spaapen, J, H Dijstelbloem and F Wamelink 2007. Evaluating Research in Context: a Method for Comprehensive Assessment. The Hague: COS.
54. Stokes, D E 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
55. Stolker, C J M M 2003. 'Ja, geléérd zijn jullie wel!' Over de status van de rechtswetenschap. Nederlands Juristenblad, 15, 776.
56. TU Delft 2009. Gouden BTA Regels voor verslagjaar 2009. Available at , last accessed 28 October 2010.
57. Van der Voordt, T J M 1999. Methodologie voor Bouwkunde. Delft: Faculteit Bouwkunde, B-Nieuws.
58. Van Leeuwen, T N 2006. The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research: who benefits from it and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics, 83(2), 363-374.
59. Van Raan, A F J, T N van Leeuwen, M S Visser et al 2010. Rivals to the crown: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 431-435.
60. VSNU 2005. Oordelen over rechten. Rapport van de Commissie Voorbereiding Onderzoeksbeoordeling Rechtsgeleerdheid. Utrecht: VSNU.
61. VSNU 2007. Naar prestatie-indicatoren voor rechtswetenschappelijk onderzoek. Rapport van de Commissie Prestatie- Indicatoren en Ranking. Utrecht: VSNU.
62. Waltman, L, N J van Eck, T N van Leeuwen et al 2011. Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.
63. Whitley, R. 2000. The Social and Intellectual Organizations of the Sciences. Oxford: OUP.