Author
Listed:
- Katrin Milzow
- Anke Reinhardt
- Sten Söderberg
- Klaus ZinöckerDeceased
Abstract
Many research funding and research performing organizations evaluate their operations or are subject to evaluations. A Working Group within Science Europe undertook to illustrate how ex post evaluation of research is actually used. Based on 11 case studies from seven organizations and countries, we explore the use of evaluation studies commissioned or conducted by member organizations. We draw on a theoretical framework that categorizes types of evaluation use, including legitimation, information, learning, steering, mediating, tactical, and ritual use. To explore the factors influencing the use of evaluations, we draw on a ‘logic model of evaluation use’ developed by Mark and Henry (2004). The study shows that many uses of evaluation studies can (co-)exist. In particular, direct influence on decision-making (steering use) is not the only type of use that practitioners see in their daily work. Equally important types of use include contribution to the knowledge base and cognitive resources within organizations and beyond. Our study highlights that a methodologically rigorous and high-quality evaluation study is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to use evaluation results. It draws attention to the fact that the context and other factors external to the evaluation itself—but often within the realm of the commissioning organization—determine the actual use of the evaluation. The findings suggest applying logic models not only to evaluation objects but also to the evaluation exercise itself, so as to consider the underlying mechanisms and chains of influence through which evaluation may have its effects.
Suggested Citation
Katrin Milzow & Anke Reinhardt & Sten Söderberg & Klaus ZinöckerDeceased, 2019.
"Understanding the use and usability of research evaluation studies1,2,"
Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 94-107.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:rseval:v:28:y:2019:i:1:p:94-107.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- repec:plo:pone00:0231735 is not listed on IDEAS
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:28:y:2019:i:1:p:94-107.. 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.