The 'Payback Framework' explained

Donovan, Claire; Hanney, Stephen

doi:10.3152/095820211x13118583635756

Cited by 119 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Payback Framework (Donovan, Hanney, 2011) is a logic model representing all the complexity of the research process, which helps in achieving impacts. The research process is considered as complex and non-linear since it comprises several feedback loops (e.g.…”

Section: Literature Review On Qualitative Methods For Evaluating Isripmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex-Post Evaluation of the Impacts of the Science-Based Research and Innovation Program: A New Method Applied in the Case of Farmers’ Transition to Organic Production in the Camargue

Quiédeville¹,

Barjolle²,

Mouret³

et al. 2017

Journal of Innovation Economics &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Literature Review On Qualitative Methods For Evaluating Isripmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex-Post Evaluation of the Impacts of the Science-Based Research and Innovation Program: A New Method Applied in the Case of Farmers’ Transition to Organic Production in the Camargue

Quiédeville¹,

Barjolle²,

Mouret³

et al. 2017

Journal of Innovation Economics &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A logical framework consists of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of the program or project [see for instance Donovan and Hanney (2011)]. But in order to develop a theory of change, two more steps are necessary.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Tdc's: Theory Of Change and Participatory Impamentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations

Drooge

Spaapen

2017

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we focus on the governance, in particular evaluation and monitoring, of the growing number of transdisciplinary collaborations (TDC's). Researchers and a variety of stakeholders collaborate in such TDC's, the purpose of which is to address societal challenges, like renewable energy, healthy aging or better language teaching in schools. Commonly used practices for evaluation of scientific research (accountability, rankings and benchmarking, dedicated to scientific excellence) do not fit the goals of TDC's. A bottom up or stakeholder oriented approach is better suited; one that stimulates mutual learning as well as the development of socially robust knowledge. We introduce the participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA), as a method that suits the requirements. It has been developed in the context of development research. Two crucial features are the involvement of stakeholders from the start, and the joint development of a theory of change. This narrates what one wants to achieve and how that will be achieved. From this, stakeholders construct a logical frame that serves as a source for indicators. These indicators enable monitoring ex durante, during the TDC. We present evidence of the use of PIPA for a TDC. From this empirical evidence a number of issues with regard to evaluation, monitoring and indicators can be identified that require attention. Most prominent is the change of function of indicators. Instead of looking back and a focus on past performance, indicators look forward, in the short, intermediate and more distant future.

show abstract

“…At the level of research systems, econometric approaches can quantify the relationship between investment in research and economic benefits (Bornmann, 2013), although these approaches are less useful for ex post evaluation at the level of institutions, programmes, projects or individuals. In this case the recommended approaches focus on capturing information about knowledge exchange interactions (Molas-Gallart and Tang, 2011;Spaapen and van Drooge, 2011) or methods based on qualitative analysis and case studies (Donovan, 2011;Donovan and Hanney, 2011;Joly et al, 2015). In some national systems, notably the Excellence for Research in Australia, attempts have also been made to assess broader impact on the basis of a small set of proxy indicators.…”

Section: History and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing (for) impact: future assessment of the societal impact of research

Hill¹

2016

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National research assessments play a role in providing accountability-to funders, government and civil society-for the activities of largely autonomous research systems. Increasingly, an element of such assessments is the assessment of societal impact. In this article, I review the development of impact assessment, with a focus on the UK's Research Excellence Framework, and consider implications and challenges for the future. Notwithstanding these challenges, I further argue that the assessment of societal impact needs to become a more central aspect of research evaluation. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

The 'Payback Framework' explained

Cited by 119 publications

References 6 publications

Ex-Post Evaluation of the Impacts of the Science-Based Research and Innovation Program: A New Method Applied in the Case of Farmers’ Transition to Organic Production in the Camargue

Ex-Post Evaluation of the Impacts of the Science-Based Research and Innovation Program: A New Method Applied in the Case of Farmers’ Transition to Organic Production in the Camargue

Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations

Assessing (for) impact: future assessment of the societal impact of research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About