IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iffpr6/48290.html

Some useful methods for measuring the benefits of social science research

Author

Listed:
  • Kilpatrick, Henry E., Jr.

Abstract

What are the “returns” to policy-oriented research in the social sciences? One presumes that the positive net benefits to society, or at least a certain segment of society, would be treated as returns, but how does one determine what these benefits are? Clearly benefits to some social science research are available because society continued to fund it, albeit at different levels in different locations and times. This paper cannot fully answer the questions of what it is we seek to measure in any empirical sense, although it will discuss this issue. The returns in the marketplace for social science research are those that exist in the eye of the customer who bears the cost of the research. This paper's primary goal is to offer the client some ways of measuring these returns. It does this with particular emphasis on methods that are often overlooked, even though some of them have been available to the analyst for decades. It also explains some of the costs and benefits of each method and explains how some of them may be used together in order to achieve a higher level of efficacy in measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Kilpatrick, Henry E., Jr., 1998. "Some useful methods for measuring the benefits of social science research," Impact Assessment Discussion Papers 48290, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iffpr6:48290
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.48290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/48290/files/iadp05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.48290?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. Eugene Garfield, 1963. "Citation indexes in sociological and historical research," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 289-291, October.
    2. A. Charnes & W. W. Cooper & R. O. Ferguson, 1955. "Optimal Estimation of Executive Compensation by Linear Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 138-151, January.
    3. Denton, Frank T, 1985. "Data Mining as an Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(1), pages 124-127, February.
    4. Nikias Sarafoglou & Kingsley E. Haynes, 1996. "University productivity in Sweden: a demonstration and explanatory analysis for economics and business programs," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 30(3), pages 285-304.
    5. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    6. Levy, David M. & Feigenbaum, Susan, 1990. "Testing the replication hypothesis : When the data set is subject to gross error," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 49-53, September.
    7. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253, December.
    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. Ryan, James G., 2003. "Evaluating The Impact Of Agricultural Projection Modeling Using The "Impact" Framework," Impact Assessment Discussion Papers 16583, CGIAR, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    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. Kilpatrick, Henry E., Jr., 1998. "Some useful methods for measuring the benefits of social science research," Impact assessments 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Susan Feigenbaum & David M. Levy, 1996. "The Technological Obsolescence Of Scientific Fraud," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(3), pages 261-276, August.
    3. Kerstin Pull & Birgit Pferdmenges & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2017. "Do Research Training Groups Operate at Optimal Size?," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 18(2), pages 129-145, May.
    4. Chatelain, Jean-Bernard, 2010. "Can statistics do without artefacts?," MPRA Paper 42867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    6. Claudius Gräbner, 2018. "Formal Approaches to Socio-economic Analysis—Past and Perspectives," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 32-63, January.
    7. Ricardo Sosa, 2011. "Understanding the Future of Change Agency in Sustainability Through Cellular Automata Scenarios: The Role of Timing †," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Hua Li & Qifang Wang & Ye Wu, 2025. "From Mobile Media to Generative AI: The Evolutionary Logic of Computational Social Science Across Data, Methods, and Theory," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Pendaraki, K. & Zopounidis, C. & Doumpos, M., 2005. "On the construction of mutual fund portfolios: A multicriteria methodology and an application to the Greek market of equity mutual funds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 462-481, June.
    10. John Sherwood & Anthony Ditta & Becky Haney & Loren Haarsma & Michael Carbajales-Dale, 2017. "Resource Criticality in Modern Economies: Agent-Based Model Demonstrates Vulnerabilities from Technological Interdependence," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Lucio Biggiero & Enrico Sevi, 2009. "Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 191-236, September.
    12. Luís de Sousa & Alberto Rodrigues da Silva, 2015. "Showcasing a Domain Specific Language for Spatial Simulation Scenarios with case studies," ERSA conference papers ersa15p1044, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Zhangqi Zhong & Lingyun He, 2022. "Macro-Regional Economic Structural Change Driven by Micro-founded Technological Innovation Diffusion: An Agent-Based Computational Economic Modeling Approach," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 471-525, February.
    14. Eugenio Caverzasi & Antoine Godin, 2013. "Stock-flow Consistent Modeling through the Ages," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_745, Levy Economics Institute.
    15. Paula E. Stephan, 2004. "Robert K. Merton's perspective on priority and the provision of the public good knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(1), pages 81-87, May.
    16. Luca Riccetti & Alberto Russo & Mauro Gallegati, 2015. "An agent based decentralized matching macroeconomic model," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 10(2), pages 305-332, October.
    17. Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, 2013. "A Framework For The Calibration Of Social Simulation Models," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(04n05), pages 1-29.
    18. Jarle Moen, 2005. "Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 81-114, January.
    19. Givanni Bonfani & Marco Villani, 2013. "Exaptation in innovation processes: theory and models," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:iffpr6:48290. 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/ifprius.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.