IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/impass/5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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 assessments 5, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:impass:5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/161253
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Colin B. Begg & Jesse A. Berlin, 1988. "Publication Bias: A Problem in Interpreting Medical Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 151(3), pages 419-445, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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 assessments 17, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Paarlberg, Robert L., 2014. "Impact assessment: IFPRI 2020 conference on building resilience on food and nutrition security," Impact assessments 37, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Kuyvenhoven, Arie, 2014. "Impact assessment of IFPRI’s capacity-strengthening work, 1985–2010," Impact assessments 38, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Kutschukian, Jean-Marc, 2008. "A Framework For The Economic Evaluation Of Environmental Science," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6026, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Auspurg Katrin & Hinz Thomas, 2011. "What Fuels Publication Bias?: Theoretical and Empirical Analyses of Risk Factors Using the Caliper Test," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 231(5-6), pages 636-660, October.
    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. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    11. Wojtek Michalowski & Włodzimierz Ogryczak, 2001. "Extending the MAD portfolio optimization model to incorporate downside risk aversion," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 185-200, April.
    12. Cinzia Colapinto & Issam Mejri, 2025. "The relevance of goal programming for financial portfolio management: a bibliometric and systematic literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 917-943, March.
    13. Petersen, Alexander M. & Rotolo, Daniele & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2016. "A triple helix model of medical innovation: Supply, demand, and technological capabilities in terms of Medical Subject Headings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 666-681.
    14. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Katharine Wirsching, 2019. "Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 545-562, February.
    15. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    16. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2023. "Multicriteria decision making and goal programming for determination of electric automobile aimed at sustainable green environment: a case study," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 211-231, June.
    17. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    18. Liu, John S. & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Ho, Mei Hsiu-Ching, 2012. "Total influence and mainstream measures for scientific researchers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 496-504.
    19. Guironnet, Jean-Pascal & Peypoch, Nicolas, 2018. "The geographical efficiency of education and research: The ranking of U.S. universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 44-55.
    20. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2015. "Innovation Suppression and Clique Evolution in Peer-Review-Based, Competitive Research Funding Systems: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13.

    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:fpr:impass:5. 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: the person in charge (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.