Evaluation of ST&I programs: A methodological approach to the brazilian small business program and some comparisons with the SBIR program

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 159-171

  Salles Filho, Sergio ^a   Bonacelli, Maria Beatriz ^a   Carneiro, Ana Maria ^a   Drummond de Castro, Paula F ^a   Santos, Fernando Oliveira ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^b Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959856674     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876184     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Acs, Z J and D B Audretsch 1988. Innovation in large firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78(4), 678-690.
2. Alston, J M, G W Norton and P G Pardey 1995. Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
3. Avila, A F D and R Evenson 1995. Total factor productivity growth in Brazilian agriculture and the role of agricultural research. Anais do XXXIII Congresso Brasileiro de Economia e Sociologia Rural. Curitiba.
4. Bach, L 2001. Emerging common knowledge about the evaluation of public R&D programmes in teh context of European Union programmes. Texto para Discussão. Campinas: DPCT, Unicamp.
5. Bach, L and G Lambert 1992. Evaluation of the economic effects of large R&D programmes: the case of the European space programme. Research Evaluation, 2(1), 17-26.
6. Bach, L and G Lambert 1998. Une Etude Transversale des Facteurs d'Innovation. Avaliação de Programas Tecnológicos e Instituições de P&D, Workshop Convênio CAPESCOFECUB. Campinas: UNICAMP/mimeo.
7. Berloznik, R and L van Langenhove 1998. Integration of technology assessment in R&D management practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 23-33.
8. Cook, T D and C S Reichardt 1979. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. London: Sage Publications.
9. Cozzens, S E 1989. Literature-Based Data in Research Evaluation: a Manager's Guide to Bibliometrics. New York: Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy.
10. Cozzens, S E 2000. Assessing federally-supported academic research in the United States. Research Evaluation, v. 8, n. 1, pp. 5-10.
11. Cruz, E R, V Palma and A F D Avila 1982. Taxas de Retorno dos Investimentos da EMBRAPA: investimentos totais e capital físico. Brasília: Departamento de Diretrizes e Métodos de Planejamento - EMBRAPA.
12. Davidson, Paul 2009. Risk and uncertainty in economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. Paper presented at the conference on 'The Economic Recession and the State of Economics', Westminster, London, 6 February 2009.
13. Evalsed 2003. Evaluating Socio-Economic Development. Sourcebook 2, Methods and Technics. Working Paper.
14. Evenson, R E 1987. Productivity decomposition methods for evaluation of agricultural research systems impacts. In Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Research: Methodologies and Brazilian Applications, eds R E Evenson, E R da Cruz, A F D Ávila and V Palma. New Haven: Embrapa and Yale University.
15. Ferraro, P J 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. In Environmental program and policy evaluation: addressing methodological challenges, special issue of New Directions for Evaluation, eds M Birnbaum and P Mickwitz, 122, 75-84.
16. Furtado, A T, A Bin, M B Bonacelli, S R Paulino, M A Miglino and P F D Castro 2006. Evaluation of the Results and Impacts of a Social-Oriented Technological Program in Brazil: The Case of the Prosab (Sanitation Program). Annual Conference Technology Transfer Society Next Generation Innovation: New Approaches and Policy Designs. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
17. Georghiou, L 1995. Research evaluation in European national science and technology systems. Research Evaluation, 5(1), April, 3-10.
18. Georghiou, L 2007. What lies beneath: avoiding the risk of underevaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(10), December, 743-752.
19. Georghiou, L and D Roessner 2000. Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, 657-678.
20. Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Nowotny, S Schwartzman, P Scott, and M Trow 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
21. Hertzfeld, H 1998. Space as an investment in economic growth. In Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the US Civilian Space Program, v. III. Using Space, ed. J M Logsdown. Washington, DC: NASA History Series.
22. Horton, D and R Mackay 2003. Using evaluation to enhance institutional learning and change: recent experiences with agricultural research and development. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 127-142.
23. IBGE 2007. Pesquisa de Inovação Tecnológica - PINTEC 2005. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Available on: urlhttp://www.ibge.gov.br/ home/estatistica/economia/industria/pintec/2005/pintec2005. pdf, last accessed 25 February 2010.
24. Kleinknecht, A and J O N Reijnen 1991. More evidence on the undercounting of small firm R&D. Research Policy, 20(6), 579-587.
25. Kostoff, R, H Averch and D Chubin 1994. Research impact assessment: introduction and overview. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 3-10.
26. Mansfield, E 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: an Econometric Analysis. New York: W W Norton.
27. Meirelles, J L F, T Pimenta Jr and D A N Rebelatto 2008. Venture capital and private equity in Brazil: alternative of financing for high technology industries. Gestão & Produção, 15(1). São Carlos.
28. 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.
29. Mundlak, Y 2000. Agriculture and Economic Growth: Theory and Measurement. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Havard University Press. Chapters 5, 11, 12, 13.
30. National Academy of Engineering 1995. Risk and Innovation: the Role and Importance of Small, High-Tech Companies in the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. Nowotny, H, P Scott and M Gibbons 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. London: Polity Press
32. OECD 1992. Science, Technology and Society: Public Opinion and Assessment Mechanisms. Paris: OECD.
33. Orians, C E, J Abed, C H Drew, S W Rose, J H Cohen and J Phelps 2009. Scientific and public health impact of the NIEHS extramural asthma research program: insights from primary data. Research Evaluation, 18(5), December, 375-385.
34. Pacheco, C A and C H B Cruz 2005. Instrumentos para o desenvolvimento: desafios para C&T e inovação em SãoPaulo. São Paulo em Perspectiva, 19(1), 324.
35. Price, D J S 1976. O Desenvolvimento da Ciência - Análise Histórica, Filosófica, Sociológica e Econômica. Trans. Simão Mathias. Rio de Janeiro: Livros Técnicos e Científicos. Editora S. A.
36. Rutman, L 1977. Planning an evaluation study. Evaluation Research Methods: a Basic Guide, ed. L Rutman. Beverly Hills: EUA, Sage.
37. Salles-Filho, S L M, M B M Bonacelli, M Zackiewicz, P F D Castro and A Bin 2007. Desenvolvimento e Aplicação de Metodologia de Avaliação de Programas de Fomento a C,T&I: o Método de Decomposição. In Anais do XII Seminario Latino- Iberoamericano de Gestión Tecnológica - ALTEC 2007. Buenos Aires.
38. Salles-Filho, S, M B M Bonacelli, M Zackiewicz and P F D Castro 2008. Development and application of a methodology for evaluating ST&I programmes: the decomposition method. In Workshop Internacional sobre Inovações Metodológicas na Avaliação do Impacto da Pesquisa Agropecuária, pp. 1-14. Brasília.
39. Salomon, J J 1991. Maîtrise sociale de la technologie: l'enjeu démocratique. Futuribles, 157, 3-18.
40. Salomon, J J 1992. Le Destin Technologique. Collection Folio/Actuel, Gallimard.
41. Salter, A J and B R Martin 2001. The economic benefits of public funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509-532.
42. Van den Ende, J, K Mulder, M Knot, E Moors and P Vergragt 1998. Traditional and modern technology assessment: toward a toolkit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58, 5-21.
43. Van Raan, A F J 1996. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics, 36(3), 397-420.
44. Velho, L 1989. Avaliação acadêmica. A hora e a vez do 'baixo clero'. Ciência e cultura. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência, 41(10), 957-968.
45. Wessner C W ed. 2007. An Assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: .
46. Wessner C W ed. 2008. An Assessment of the SBIR Program at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47. Williams, D and A D Rank 1998. Measuring the economic benefits of research and development: the current state of art. Annals of the APEC Symposium of S&T Programmes, 2-4 December, Wellington, New Zealand.
48. Zackiewickz, M 2006. Avaliação de Programas de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação - as fronteiras entre resultados, impactos e governança. Anais do XXIV Simpósio de Inovação Tecnológica. Gramado-RS.