IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277554.html

Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Agricultural Research Organization: Impact oriented monitoring approach

Author

Listed:
  • Guesmi, B.
  • Gil, J.M.

Abstract

This study uses impact oriented monitoring (IOM) methodology recently proposed by Guinea et al. (2015) to identify and assess the socio-economic impact of public research organizations through case studies. IOM techniques overcome the most relevant limitations associated to mainstream research impact assessment (RIA). The IOM approach has been extended to a consideration of the multidimensional impact produced by the agricultural research and development. In contrast to previous studies, multi-criteria decision techniques based on ELECTRE III method are applied to derive global picture of impact. The methodology is expected to provide the Institute of Agro-food Research and Technology (IRTA) with useful information on how the research projects in the area of agro-food sector are generating impacts. Such analysis would support monitoring the impacts of agricultural research and assist in better targeting adequate research policy planning and project management strategies. The relevance of using new RIA approach can be evidenced by its applicability to other case studies and also its potential to be implemented in other agricultural research institutions in different countries. The use of refined methods has thus important implications. Acknowledgement : The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Institute for Food and Agricultural Research and Technology (IRTA).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277554
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277554/files/2273.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277554?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Claire Donovan & Stephen Hanney, 2011. "The ‘Payback Framework’ explained," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 181-183, September.
    3. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    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. Bouali Guesmi & José M. Gil, 2021. "Building a culture of research impact assessment within the agro-food research organizations," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-4, December.

    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Matt, M. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P-B. & Colinet, L., 2017. "Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 207-218.
    4. Paget, Nicolas & Le Gal, Pierre-Yves & Goulet, Frédéric, 2024. "Motivations and challenges of intrapreneurship in research organizations. The case of decision support systems in agricultural research for development," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Christina Boswell & Katherine Smith, 2018. "Correction: Rethinking policy “impact”: four models of research-policy relations," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-1, December.
    6. 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).
    7. Alessandro Magrini & Fabio Bartolini & Alessandra Coli & Barbara Pacini, 2019. "A structural equation model to assess the impact of agricultural research expenditure on multiple dimensions," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2063-2080, July.
    8. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stéphane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: Issues, methods and challenges," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 98, OECD Publishing.
    9. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Mireille Matt, 2022. "Towards a new generation of research impact assessment approaches," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 621-631, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    13. Jonathan P. Doh & Lorraine Eden & Anne S. Tsui & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Developing international business scholarship for global societal impact," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(5), pages 757-767, July.
    14. J. Britt Holbrook, 2017. "The future of the impact agenda depends on the revaluation of academic freedom," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Daniela Filippo & Pablo Sastrón-Toledo, 2023. "Influence of research on open science in the public policy sphere," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1995-2017, March.
    16. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    17. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 935-950.
    18. Brooks, Chris & Fenton, Evelyn & Schopohl, Lisa & Walker, James, 2019. "Why does research in finance have so little impact?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 24-52.
    19. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    20. Wohlrabe, Klaus & Bornmann, Lutz & de Moya Anegon, Felix, 2017. "Wie effizient sind Universitäten in Deutschland, deren Zukunftskonzepte im Rahmen der Exzellenzinitiative ausgezeichnet wurden? Ein empirischer Vergleich von Input- und Output-Daten zur Forschung [," MPRA Paper 76218, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae18:277554. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.