IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i3p181-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The ‘Payback Framework’ explained

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Donovan
  • Stephen Hanney

Abstract

The Payback Framework, originally developed to examine the ‘impact’ or ‘payback’ of health services research, is explained. The Payback Framework is a research tool used to facilitate data collection and cross-case analysis by providing a common structure and so ensuring cognate information is recorded. It consists of a logic model representation of the complete research process, and a series of categories to classify the individual paybacks from research. Its multi-dimensional categorisation of benefits from research starts with more traditional academic benefits of knowledge production and research capacity-building, and then extends to wider benefits to society. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Donovan & Stephen Hanney, 2011. "The ‘Payback Framework’ explained," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 181-183, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:181-183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X13118583635756
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christina Boswell & Katherine Smith, 2017. "Rethinking policy ‘impact’: four models of research-policy relations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    3. Eileen Piggot-Irvine & Deborah Zornes, 2016. "Developing a Framework for Research Evaluation in Complex Contexts Such as Action Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    4. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    5. Gaunand, A. & Hocdé, A. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M. & Turckheim, E.de, 2015. "How does public agricultural research impact society? A characterization of various patterns," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 849-861.
    6. Joly, P.B. & Gaunand, A. & Colinet, L. & Larédo, P. & Lemarié, S. & Matt, M., 2015. "ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization," Working Papers 2015-04, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    7. Guesmi, B. & Gil, J.M., 2018. "Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Agricultural Research Organization: Impact oriented monitoring approach," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277554, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:3:p:181-183. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.