Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering, and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts

Implementation Science

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Stone, Vathsala I ^a   Lane, Joseph P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TECHNOLOGY; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

HEALTH PLANNING; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PUBLIC-PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84861009106     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-44     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Weiss CH. The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review 1979, 39:426-431.
2. International Development Research Centre Knowledge Translation: Basic Theories, Approaches and Applications 2007, [http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-125826-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html], International Development Research Centre.
3. Averch HA. Using Expert Judgment. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation 2004, 292-309. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE.
4. Wholey JS. Evaluability Assessment: Developing Program Theory. In New Directions for Program Evaluation 1987, 77-92. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
5. Wholey JS. Evaluability Assessment. JS Wholey, HP Hatry, KE Newcomer 2004, 33-62. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
6. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Logic Models: a tool for telling your performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning 1991, 22:65-72.
7. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Using logic models. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation 2004, 7-32. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE.
8. Boruch RF, Petrosino A. Meta-analysis, Systematic Reviews, and Research Syntheses. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation 2004, 176-203. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE.
9. Special Issue. Recognizing the supply of and demand for research in the science of science and innovation policy 2011, Policy Sciences, Pleke R.
10. Group of 8 Australia: Go8 Backgrounder 23 - Measuring the impact of research - the context for metric development 2011, [http://www.go8.edu.au/university-staff/go8-policy-_and_-analysis/2011/go8-backgrounder-23-measuring-the-impact-of-research-the-context-for-metric-development].
11. Herzlinger RE. Why Innovation in Health Care is so Hard 2011, Harvard Business Publishing, Boston.
12. Lane JP, Flagg JL. Translating three states of knowledge - discovery, invention, and innovation. Implement Sci 2010, 5:9. [http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/9], 10.1186/1748-5908-5-9, 2827367, 20205873.
13. Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in healthcare. JAMA 2003, 289:15.
14. National Science Foundation's Engineering Research Centers [http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13526].
15. National Science Foundation's Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers [http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5501], National Science Foundation's Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers.
16. National Science Foundation's Innovation Corps [http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504672].
17. National Institutes of Health's Program on Public and Private Partnerships [http://ppp.od.nih.gov/].
18. National Institutes of Standards and Technology's Technology Innovation Program [http://www.nist.gov/tip/], 3431478, 22955973.
19. US Small Business Administration, Small Business Technology Transfer http://archive.sba.gov/aboutsba/sbaprograms/sbir/index.html.
20. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada [http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC CRSNG/Index_eng.asp].
21. Research Framework Programme [http://ec.europa.eu/cip/].
22. Yonxiang L. Science & Technology in China: A Roadmap to 2050: In Strategic General Report of the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2011, Science Press Beijing, Springer.
23. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation The Program Evaluation Standards 1994, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.
24. Stufflebeam DL, Foley WJ, Gephart WJ, Guba EG, Hammond RL, Merriman HO, Provus MM. Educational Evaluation and Decision Making 1971, Peacock, Itasca, IL.
25. Stufflebeam DL. Evaluation models. In New Directions for Evaluation 2001, 7-98. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
26. Stufflebeam DL. The 21stCentury CIPP Model: Origins, Development and Use. In Evaluation Roots 2004, 245-266. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Alkin MC.
27. Stufflebeam DL. In International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. CIPP model (context, input, process, product) 2005, 60-65. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, Mathison S.
28. Stufflebeam DL, Shinkfield AJ. Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications 2007, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
29. Canadian Institute of Health Research 2009, About Knowledge Translation [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html].
30. Sudsawad P. Knowledge Translation: Introduction to Models, Strategies, and Measures 2007, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research, Austin, TX.
31. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. Lost in Translation: Time for a Map?. J Contin Educ Heal Prof 2006, 26:13-24.
32. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. (5th Ed.) 2003, Free Press, Simon and Schuster Inc, NY.
33. Lane JP, Rogers JD. Engaging national organizations for knowledge translation: comparative case studies in knowledge value mapping. Implement Sci 2011, 6:1. [http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1], 10.1186/1748-5908-6-1, 3024963, 21208425.
34. Bush V. Science: The Endless Frontier 1960, National Science Foundation, Reprinted by Washington, D.C.
35. Logar N. Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies, Policy Sciences 2011, [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/sip_logar.pdf].
36. Stokes DE. Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation 1997, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
37. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA. The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10:5-16. 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.001, 23024810.
38. Stufflebeam DL. Stufflebeam's improvement-oriented evaluation. In Systematic Evaluation 1985, 151-207. Kluwere-Nijhoff, Boston, Stufflebeam DL, Shinkfield AJ.
39. Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines 1997, Longman, New York, 2.
40. Scriven M. The methodology of evaluation. In Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice 1973, 60-106. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, Worthen BR, Sanders JR.
41. Scriven M. Evaluation Thesaurus 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 4.
42. Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: The Need to Knowledge Model for Commercial Devices and Services 2009, Buffalo, NY, [http://kt4tt.buffalo.edu/knowledgebase/model.php].
43. The PDMA Handbook of New Product Development 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, Kahn KB, Castellion G, Griffin A.
44. Frechtling JA. Logic Modeling Methods in Program Evaluation 2007, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
45. Rogers PJ. Logic model. In Encyclopedia of Evaluation 2004, 232-4. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, Mathison S.
46. United Way of America Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach 1996, United Way of America, Arlington, VA, United Way of America.
47. W K Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide 2001, Battle Creek, MI, [http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/WK-Kellogg-Foundation-Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx ], W K Kellogg Foundation.
48. Williams VL, Elseman E, Landree E, Adamson DM. Demonstrating and Communicating Research Impact 2009, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
49. USDE/NIDRR United States Department of Education/National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation Research: Notice of Final Long-Range Plan for Fiscal years 2005-2009. Federal Register 2006, 71:31-8166-8200. Notices, USDE/NIDRR.
50. Rogers PJ. Purposeful program teory. In workshop material distributed at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association Conference 2009, Orlando, FL.
51. Chen HT. Theory-Driven Evaluation 1990, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
52. Chen HT. Theory-driven evaluation. In Encyclopedia of Evaluation 2004, 415-419. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, Mathison S.
53. Donaldson SI, Lipsey MW. Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: developing practical knowledge 2006, 56-75. Sage Publications, In The Sage handbook of evaluation, Edited by IF Shaw, JC Greene, MM Mark, Thousand Oaks, CA.
54. Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 2008, 14:29-48.
55. Rogers PJ, Hasci TA, Petrosino A, Huebner TA. Program theory in evaluation: challenges and opportunities. In New Directions for Evaluation 87 2000, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
56. Weiss CH. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies 1998, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
57. Scriven M, Coryn CLS. The logic of research evaluation. In New Directions for Evaluation 2008, 89-105. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
58. Lane J. At the confluence of academic research and business development-merging technology transfer with knowledge translation to deliver value. Focused Issue: State of the Science for Technology Transfer, Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 2010, 6(1):1-38. [http://www.atia.org/files/public/ATOBV6N1ArticleTwo.pdf].
59. Litan RE, Mitchell L, Reedy EJ. Commercializing University Innovations: Alternative Approaches 2007, Social Science Research Network, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976005].
60. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res Policy 2003, 32:27-48.
61. McDaniel SA. Where Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators hit the Road and Roadblocks 2006, OECD Blue Sky II, Forum, Ottawa, Canada, [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/47/37436324.pdf].
62. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 2007, 23(4):640-660. [http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/640.abstract].
63. Rogers PJ, Williams B. Evaluation for practice improvement and organizational learning. In The Sage handbook of evaluation 2006, 76-97. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Shaw IF, Greene JC, Mark MM.
64. Jordan GB, Hage J, Mote J. A theories-based systemic framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of scientific work, Part I: micro and meso indicators. In New Directions for Evaluation 2008, 7-24. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.