Section: Research Policy & Development

Schuch, K., Campbell, D., Carayannis, E. G. and Edler, J. (2017): Evaluation of Research, Development, and Innovation. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; p. 1-8; share and cite: doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_200025-1

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_200025-1

Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6616-1

Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6616-1

Publisher: Springer New York

Key Concepts and Definition of Terms

There are many definitions of the term evaluation. One of the shortest attempts to define evaluation is phrasing it as combination of evidence and judgment. The term evaluation includes also different notions of “valuing,” including the provision of orientation or to attach a specific value to something. Wiliam M. K. Trochim (2006) defined evaluation as “the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object.” Although the object of evaluation can be whatsoever, evaluation as a systematic exercise became more and more associated to the field of policy making and public service delivery (Rossi et al. 1999). The OECD (2002) pays attention to the different scopes of objects and the intervention logic and accountability of policy-making by defining evaluation as “the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results.”

Evaluation of research, technological development, and innovation (RTDI) refers to different aspects of science policy, technology policy, and innovation policy, sometimes generalized under the term research policy evaluation. It usually refers to a certain intentional public intervention (e.g., a research funding program) or a portfolio of interventions. Evaluation, however, can also refer to other objects or phenomena, which are not directly associated with public policy interventions, such as the evaluation of a research proposal or a scientific paper. For these cases the term “review” is preferable. The distinction between “public policy intervention based” and “nonpublic policy intervention based,” however, is blurred. The evaluation of the bibliometric output and impact triggered by a public research program in the field of quantum computing, for example, may be considered as a proxy of the excellence orientation and substance of a public intervention, but the individual bibliometric output and impact of a researcher financed under such a research program is usually not considered to be an object of policy evaluation.

Evaluations belong to an arsenal of strategic intelligence which is available to policy-makers and program owners and managers. RTDI evaluations for instance can scrutinize assumptions underlying RTI policy and the legitimacy of interventions, they assess (and sometimes identify) different options for actions, and they sometimes even replace missing allocation mechanisms, especially in view of nonexisting or distorted markets.

Most commonly, evaluations are differentiated by (i) functions and purposes, (ii) objects and levels of aggregation, (iii) timing and content, and (iv) by the so-called Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria (EVAL-INNO 2012) ....

FULL ARTICLE here.

Authors: Schuch, K., Klaus Schuch schuch@zsi.at (2) David F. J. Campbell (3) Elias G. Carayannis (4) Jakob Edler (5) 2. Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI), Linke Wienzeile 246, Vienna, Austria 3...

Related Articles:

• News: New COST Action launched with ZSI
• News: Begutachtung auf dem Prüfstand

Tags: evaluation