U.S. Evaluation of Strategic Research: Closing the Gap with Europe and Japan

  • Susan E. Cozzens
Chapter

Abstract

In the 1980s, a gap seemed to open between the level of research evaluation activity in the United States and the level in Europe and Japan. The surge in European efforts in retrospective research evaluation began at the Commission of the European Communities in the late 1970s. The Commission sponsored a series of conferences in the 1970s and 1980s to discuss the idea of research evaluation in the European context and to assess progress. By the mid-1980s, all Community research programs were on a regular schedule of evaluation (see Boggio and Spachis-Papazois, 1984.) Following closely behind, individual Community nations, including France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, began to gear up for appraisal of their local institutions (see Gamier, 1983; Moed et al., 1985; Department of Trade and Industry, 1988), and the Nordic countries collectively increased their expertise and activity (see Ormala, 1987). The European Community eventually established a network of evaluation methodologists, allowing countries and Community alike to share knowledge and experience.

Keywords

Research Initiative Center Program Research Evaluation Retrospective Evaluation Strategic Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asahi Research Centre. 1982. Review of Methods of Research Evaluation. Report to Science and Technology Agency, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  2. Asahi Research Centre. 1983. Review of Methods of Research Evaluation Abroad and in the Japanese Private Sector. Report to Science and Technology Agency, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  3. Averch, H. 1990. “Policy Uses of the ‘Evaluation of Research’ Literature.” Background paper for the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. NTIS PB91–166645.Google Scholar
  4. Barré, Rémi. 1990. “Strategic Processes and SandT Indicators: Towards a Key Role in RandD Management Systems.” In S. Cozzens et al. (Eds.) The Research System in Transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Block, Hans-Jürgen. 1990. “The University System in Transition: Possibilities and Limitations of Universities in the ‘Steady State”’ In S. Cozzens et al., editors, The Research System in Transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Boggio, G., and E. Spachis-Papazois. 1984. Evaluation of Research and Development: Methodologies for RandD Evaluation in the European Community Member States, The United States of America and Japan. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Council for Science and Technology, Policy Committee, Prime Minister’s Office, and Committee on Guidelines for Research Evaluation. 1986. Basic View on Research Evaluation. Tokyo.Google Scholar
  8. Council for Science and Technology, Policy Committee, Prime Minister’s Office, and Committee on Guidelines for Research Evaluation. 1986. Guidelines on Research Evaluation. Tokyo.Google Scholar
  9. Cozzens, Susan E. 1987. “Expert review in evaluating programs.” Science and Public Policy 14 2: 71–81.Google Scholar
  10. Cozzens, Susan E., et al., editors, The Research System in Transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Energy. 1982. An Assessment of the Basic Energy Sciences Program. DOE/ER-0123. Washington, DC: Office of Energy Research, Office of Program Analysis.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom. 1988. Evaluation of RandD-A Policymaker’s Perspective. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  13. Fasella, P. 1984. “The Evaluation of the European Community’s Research and Development Programmes.” In G. Boggio and E. Spachis-Papazois, Evaluation of Research and Development. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  14. Garnier, Patrick. 1983. “L’Evaluation des Programmes de la Recherche Scientifique.” Summary of a seminar on evaluation of programs in the major French research organizations. Paris: Ministry of Research and Industry, October 1983.Google Scholar
  15. Johnston, R. 1990. “Strategic Policy for Science.” In S. Cozzens et al., editors, The Research System in Transition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Irvine, J. 1988. Evaluating Applied Research: Lesson from Japan. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  17. Irvine, J. and B. Martin. 1986. “British Science Evaluation Methods.” Testimony before the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee. Published as Vol. 13, Task Force on Science Policy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Kostoff, R. N. 1988. “Evaluation of Proposed and Existing Accelerated Research Programs of the Office of Naval Research.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 35 (Nov): 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krull, W. 1992. “The Evaluation and Restructuring of Non-University Research Institutions in East Germany by the Science Council-An Overview.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Methodologies for Evaluating the Future Potential of Research Institutions, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 23–25 March. Sponsored by the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Ling, J. et al. 1978. Evaluative Study of the Materials Research Laboratory Program. Washington, DC: The Mitre Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, B. R. and J. Irvine. 1983. “Assessing Basic Research: Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy.” Research Policy 12: 6190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moed, H. F., W. J. M. Burger, J. G. Frankfort, and A. F. J. van Raan. 1985. “The Use of Bibliometric Data for the Measurement of University Research Performance.” Research Policy 14: 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. 1986. Research Funding as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  24. Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. 1991. Federally-Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, OTA-SET 490. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  25. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 1987. Evaluation of Research: A Selection of Current Practices Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Ormala, E. 1989. “Nordic Experiences of the Evaluation of Technical Research and Development.” Research Policy 18 (6): 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Price, Derek de Solla. 1965. “The scientific foundations of science policy.” Nature (17 April): 233–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan E. Cozzens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteUSA

Personalised recommendations