IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i3p505-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the payback of research activities: A feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health

Author

Listed:
  • Aymerich, Marta
  • Carrion, Carme
  • Gallo, Pedro
  • Garcia, Maria
  • López-Bermejo, Abel
  • Quesada, Miquel
  • Ramos, Rafel

Abstract

Most ex-post evaluations of research funding programs are based on bibliometric methods and, although this approach has been widely used, it only examines one facet of the project's impact, that is, scientific productivity. More comprehensive models of payback assessment of research activities are designed for large-scale projects with extensive funding. The purpose of this study was to design and implement a methodology for the ex-post evaluation of small-scale projects that would take into account both the fulfillment of projects' stated objectives as well as other wider benefits to society as payback measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Aymerich, Marta & Carrion, Carme & Gallo, Pedro & Garcia, Maria & López-Bermejo, Abel & Quesada, Miquel & Ramos, Rafel, 2012. "Measuring the payback of research activities: A feasible ex-post evaluation methodology in epidemiology and public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 505-510.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:3:p:505-510
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612003267
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N Rons & A De Bruyn & J Cornelis, 2008. "Research evaluation per discipline: a peer-review method and its outcomes," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 45-57, March.
    2. Laura Meagher & Catherine Lyall & Sandra Nutley, 2008. "Flows of knowledge, expertise and influence: a method for assessing policy and practice impacts from social science research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 163-173, September.
    3. Hanney, Steve & Mugford, Miranda & Grant, Jonathan & Buxton, Martin, 2005. "Assessing the benefits of health research: lessons from research into the use of antenatal corticosteroids for the prevention of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(5), pages 937-947, March.
    4. Steve Hanney & Andrew Davies & Martin Buxton, 1999. "Assessing benefits from health research projects: can we use questionnaires instead of case studies?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 189-199, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    2. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    3. Stefan P. L. de Jong & Jorrit Smit & Leonie van Drooge, 2016. "Scientists’ response to societal impact policies: A policy paradox," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 102-114.
    4. Delphine Labbé & Atiya Mahmood & William C. Miller & W. Ben Mortenson, 2020. "Examining the Impact of Knowledge Mobilization Strategies to Inform Urban Stakeholders on Accessibility: A Mixed-Methods study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria & Guns, Raf & Rousseau, Ronald & Engels, Tim C.E., 2015. "Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 704-721.
    6. Fleurence, Rachael L. & Torgerson, David J., 2004. "Setting priorities for research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-10, July.
    7. Rossi, Federica & Rosli, Ainurul & Yip, Nick, 2017. "Academic engagement as knowledge co-production and implications for impact: Evidence from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-9.
    8. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    9. Gunnar Sivertsen & Ingeborg Meijer, 2020. "Normal versus extraordinary societal impact: how to understand, evaluate, and improve research activities in their relations to society?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 66-70.
    10. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    11. J. Guinea & E. Sela & A. J. Gómez-Núñez & T. Mangwende & A. Ambali & N. Ngum & H. Jaramillo & J. M. Gallego & A. Patiño & C. Latorre & S. Srivanichakorn & B. Thepthien, 2015. "Impact oriented monitoring: A new methodology for monitoring and evaluation of international public health research projects," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 131-145.
    12. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    13. Rossi, Federica & Sengupta, Abhijit, 2022. "Implementing strategic changes in universities’ knowledge exchange profiles: The role and nature of managerial interventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 874-887.
    14. Cole, Stroma & Wardana, Agung & Dharmiasih, Wiwik, 2021. "Making an impact on Bali's water crisis: Research to mobilize NGOs, the tourism industry and policy makers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    15. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    16. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    17. Dorian Aliu & Ayten Akatay & Armando Aliu & Umut Eroglu, 2017. "Public Policy Influences on Academia in the European Union," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    18. Hawkins, Richard & Langford, Cooper H. & Saunders, Chad, 2015. "Assessing the practical application of social knowledge: A survey of six leading Canadian Universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 83-95.
    19. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    20. Edwards, David M. & Meagher, Laura R., 2020. "A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:3:p:505-510. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.