Expert panel reviews of research centers: The site visit process

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 390-397

  Lawrenz, Frances ^a   Thao, Mao ^a   Johnson, Kelli ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert panel review evaluation; Research center; Site visit

Indexed keywords

OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; RESEARCH; RESEARCH INSTITUTION;

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RESEARCH; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY;

CONSENSUS; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84856488619     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barbosa M., Grayson D. Site visits: Assessing and improving the climate for women in physics. AIP conference proceedings 2009, Vol. 1119:14-15. American Institute of Physics. 10.1063/1.3137748.
2. Bolman L., Deal T. Reframing organizations: Artistry choice and leadership 2008, Jossey Bass, San Francisco. 4th ed.
3. Borum F., Hanssen H.F. The local construction and enactment of standards for research evaluation. The case of the Copenhagen business school evaluation. Evaluation 2000, 6:281-299.
4. Bulter L., McAllister I. Evaluating university research performance using metrics. European Political Science 2011, 10(1):44-58.
5. Commission on Accreditation Council on chiropractic education site visit team manual: Guide for site team chairs and members of visit teams 2001, Council on Chiropractic Education, Scottsdale, AZ.
6. Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care Site visit process 2010, Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care, Bedford, TX, Retrieved from: http://www.coarc.com/20.html.
7. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine Policy and Global Affairs (2001). Implementing the government performance and results act for research: A status report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from the National Academies Press website:. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10106.html.
8. Reforming the evaluation of research. New directions for evaluation, No. 118 2008, Jossey-Bass, California. C.L.S. Coryn, M. Scriven (Eds.).
9. De Jong S.P.L., Van Arensbergen P., Daemen F., Van der Meulen B., Van den Besselaar P. Evaluation of research in context: An approach and two cases. Research Evaluation 2011, 20(1):61-72.
10. Eisner E.W. The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice 1998, Merrill, New Jersey.
11. Foltz F. The ups and downs of peer review: Making funding choices for science. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society 2000, 20(6):427-440.
12. General Accounting Office (GAO). (1998). Program evaluation: Agencies challenged by new demand for information on program results. GAO/GGD-98-53. Retrieved from:. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/gg98053.pdf.
13. General Accounting Office (GAO). (1999). Federal research: Peer review practices at federal science agencies vary. GAO/RCED-99-99. Retrieved from:. http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/rc99099.pdf.
14. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003). Program evaluation: An evaluation culture and collaborative partnerships help build agency capacity. GAO-03-454. Retrieved from:. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03454.pdf.
15. Gray D.O. Making team science better: Applying improvement-oriented evaluation principles to evaluation of cooperative research centers. New directions for evaluation, No. 118 2008, 73-87. C.L.S. Coryn, M. Scriven (Eds.).
16. Hansson F. Dialogue in or with the peer review? Evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning. Science and Public Policy 2010, 37(4):239-251.
17. Harvey, L. (2009). Analytic quality glossary. Retrieved from:. http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/sitevisit.htm.
18. Jordan, G. (2003). GPRA Tutorial Section 4: Program Performance Evaluation, presentation to the Sixth Annual Performance Conference of the National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from the Environmental Protection Agency website:. http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/pdf/gpratutor.pdf.
19. Kaiser F., Brass C. Independent evaluators of federal programs: Approaches, devices and examples 2010, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Washington, DC.
20. Lane J., Wade J., Down L., Bonnington S., Holding P., Lennon T., et al. A peer review intervention for monitoring and evaluating sites (PRIME) that improved randomized controlled trial conduct and performance. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011, 64(6):628-636.
21. Langfeldt L. The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation 2006, 13(1):31-41.
22. Lawrenz F., Keiser N., Lavoie B. Evaluative site visits: A methodological review. American Journal of Evaluation 2003, 24(3):341-352.
23. Love A. Visits to the world of practice. Evaluation 1996, 2:349-361.
24. Manners G. Another look at group size, group problem solving and member consensus. The Academy of Management Journal 1975, 18(4):715-724.
25. Mitchell R. Site visits in the accreditation process of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). Evaluation and Research in Education 1990, 4:75-79.
26. Quinlan K.M., Kane M., Trochim W.M.K. Evaluation of large research initiatives: Outcomes, challenges, and methodological considerations. New directions for evaluation, No. 118 2008, 61-72. C.L.S. Coryn, M. Scriven (Eds.).
27. Rons N., DeBruyn A., Cornelis J. Research evaluation per discipline: A peer-review method and its outcomes. Research Evaluation 2011, 17(1):45-57.
28. Rosbash M. A threat to medical innovation. Science 2011, 333:136.
29. Scriven M., Coryn C. The logic of research evaluation. New directions for evaluation, No. 118 2008, 73-87. C.L.S. Coryn, M. Scriven (Eds.).
30. Segerholm C. National evaluations as governing instruments: How do they govern?. Evaluation 2001, 7:427-438.
31. Spotts, P. (2010). IPCC climate change panel needs transparency, review panel finds. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from:. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0830/IPCC-climate-change-panel-needs-transparency-review-panel-finds.
32. Toker U., Gray D. Innovation spaces: Workspace planning and innovation in U.S. university research centers. Research Policy 2008, 37:309-329.
33. United States Department of Energy (DOE) and Oak Ridge Associated Universities. (2006). The performance-based management handbook: A six-volume compilation of tools and techniques for implementing the government performance and results act of 1993. Retrieved from:. http://www.orau.gov/pbm/pbmhandbook/Volume%204.pdf.
34. Youtie J., Corley E. Federally sponsored multidisciplinary research centers: Learning, evaluation, and vicious circles. Evaluation and Program Planning 2011, 34(1):13-20.