IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i6p1071-d148907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Project Evaluation—Learnings from the PATHWAYS Project Experience

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksander Galas

    (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland)

  • Aleksandra Pilat

    (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland)

  • Matilde Leonardi

    (Fondazione IRCCS, Neurological Institute Carlo Besta, 20-133 Milano, Italy)

  • Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk

    (Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland)

Abstract

Background: Every research project faces challenges regarding how to achieve its goals in a timely and effective manner. The purpose of this paper is to present a project evaluation methodology gathered during the implementation of the Participation to Healthy Workplaces and Inclusive Strategies in the Work Sector (the EU PATHWAYS Project). The PATHWAYS project involved multiple countries and multi-cultural aspects of re/integrating chronically ill patients into labor markets in different countries. This paper describes key project’s evaluation issues including: (1) purposes, (2) advisability, (3) tools, (4) implementation, and (5) possible benefits and presents the advantages of a continuous monitoring. Methods: Project evaluation tool to assess structure and resources, process, management and communication, achievements, and outcomes. The project used a mixed evaluation approach and included Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Results: A methodology for longitudinal EU projects’ evaluation is described. The evaluation process allowed to highlight strengths and weaknesses and highlighted good coordination and communication between project partners as well as some key issues such as: the need for a shared glossary covering areas investigated by the project, problematic issues related to the involvement of stakeholders from outside the project, and issues with timing. Numerical SWOT analysis showed improvement in project performance over time. The proportion of participating project partners in the evaluation varied from 100% to 83.3%. Conclusions: There is a need for the implementation of a structured evaluation process in multidisciplinary projects involving different stakeholders in diverse socio-environmental and political conditions. Based on the PATHWAYS experience, a clear monitoring methodology is suggested as essential in every multidisciplinary research projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksander Galas & Aleksandra Pilat & Matilde Leonardi & Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk, 2018. "Research Project Evaluation—Learnings from the PATHWAYS Project Experience," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1071-:d:148907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1071/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1071/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    2. Linda Butler, 2003. "Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 39-46, April.
    3. Alan L Porter & J David Roessner & Alex S Cohen & Marty Perreault, 2006. "Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 187-195, December.
    4. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matilde Leonardi & Chiara Scaratti, 2018. "Employment and People with Non Communicable Chronic Diseases: PATHWAYS Recommendations and Suggested Actions for Implementing an Inclusive Labour Market for All and Health in All Sectors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-6, August.

    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. Alberto Anfossi & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giorgio Parisi & Sergio Benedetto, 2016. "Large-scale assessment of research outputs through a weighted combination of bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 671-683, May.
    2. Carmen Osuna & Laura Cruz Castro & Luis Sanz Menéndez, 2010. "Knocking down some Assumptions about the Effects of Evaluation Systems on Publications," Working Papers 1010, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    3. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    4. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    5. Lin Zhang & Ronald Rousseau & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2016. "Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1257-1265, May.
    6. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    7. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    8. Hackett, Edward J. & Leahey, Erin & Parker, John N. & Rafols, Ismael & Hampton, Stephanie E. & Corte, Ugo & Chavarro, Diego & Drake, John M. & Penders, Bart & Sheble, Laura & Vermeulen, Niki & Vision,, 2021. "Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    9. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    11. Ebersberger, Bernd & Edler, Jakob & Lo, Vivien, 2006. "Improving policy understanding by means of secondary analyses of policy evaluation: a concept development," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 12, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    12. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    13. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Tindaro Cicero, 2012. "What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 1005-1017, December.
    14. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    15. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    16. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    17. Dellaportas, Steven & Xu, Lina & Yang, Zhiqiang, 2022. "The level of cross-disciplinarity in cross-disciplinary accounting research: analysis and suggestions for improvement," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    18. Reddy, Kotapati Srinivasa, 2015. "Extant Reviews on Entry-mode/Internationalization, Mergers & Acquisitions, and Diversification: Understanding Theories and Establishing Interdisciplinary Research," MPRA Paper 63744, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    19. Tea Petrin & Dragana Radicic, 2023. "Instrument policy mix and firm size: is there complementarity between R&D subsidies and R&D tax credits?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 181-215, February.
    20. Jon Garner & Alan L. Porter & Nils C. Newman, 2014. "Distance and velocity measures: using citations to determine breadth and speed of research impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(3), pages 687-703, September.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1071-:d:148907. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.