|
A Study of the New Model and Methodology for Institute Evaluation in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Xiaoxuan Li, Chinese Academy of Sciences, xiaoxuan@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Bing Shi, Chinese Academy of Sciences, bshi@cashq.ac.cn
|
| Jianzhong Zhou, Chinese Academy of Sciences, jzzhou@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Abstract:
In this study, we presented a new model for institute evaluation based on the case study in Chinese Academy Science (CAS). Firstly, the characteristics of research activity of seven different institutes were analyzed. Secondly, the study summarized the basic rules, output characteristics, the quantitative and qualitative evaluation patterns of output and outcome about different institutes. Lastly, a three-hierarchy evaluation model for different institutes was presented. By this model, the key indicators as well as the benchmark of these indicators were expected to be found out through quantitative and qualitative methods. So that, the performance of the same type institutes could be compared to help the institute make clear their own development objects in the future.
|
|
The Status Analysis of Chinese Academy of Sciences Among National Research Institutes in the World
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Guoliang Yang, Chinese Academy of Sciences, glyang@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Zhiyuan Liu, Chinese Academy of Sciences, liuzy@casipm.ac.cn
|
| Wenbin Liu, University of Kent, w.b.liu@kent.ac.uk
|
| Abstract:
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is a leading academic institution in China. In order to identify the status of CAS among national research institutes in the world, it is necessary to put CAS into the background of international S&T development and compare with other national research institutes to discover the advantages / disadvantages so that decision-makers can make suitable development strategy to improve the competitiveness and influence of CAS. This research discussed some key issues, such as the comparability of national research institutes, what to be compared and how to compare. This research tried to build a logical model based on common attributes of national research institutes to analyze the international status of CAS.
|
|
Designing Evaluation for Complex Multiple-component Funded Research Programs
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Genevieve deAlmeida-Morris, National Institutes of Health, dealmeig@mail.nih.gov
|
| Abstract:
This paper describes the planning and designing of evaluation for a recent set of funded research programs. Research programs are complex, have time-related effects, and in the case of biomedical research, have benefits that can impact health and lives for generations. These complexities make it difficult to count and value the program benefits. Adding to these complexities are contextual dimensions such as scientist-managers administering the programs and participating in the evaluation while the evaluation must be maintained as a distinct function from program management, multiple components in a program some of which provide a service or products for use by other components, and requirements to conduct self-evaluation while also participating in the Agency's overall evaluation of the program. We describe how evaluation planning for these complex research programs was conducted, and how several methodologies were developed and employed to cope with the requirements of multiple contexts.
|
|
Research, Technology, and Development (RT&D) in Context: Evaluating the Indirect Effects of Self-Sustaining Cooperative Research Centers
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Lindsey McGowen, North Carolina State University, lindseycm@hotmail.com
|
| Denis Gray, North Carolina State University, denis_gray@ncsu.edu
|
| Abstract:
An explicit goal of many federally funded research centers including NSF's Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (and Engineering Research Centers), is to create self-sustaining centers. Thus, I/UCRCs are expected to have both direct effects while funded by NSF and indirect effects perhaps decades after NSF funding has ceased. The overarching goal of this study was to determine the extent to which I/UCRC program has produced self-sustaining centers and to estimate some of the outputs and impacts produced by these centers. The study examined the status of 73 'graduated' centers. Data collection focused on: funding leverage, human resources impacts, industrial partnerships and technological impacts. Findings suggest that graduated I/UCRCs can be categorized as: not sustained, sustained and transformed. Both sustained and transformed centers continue to demonstrate high levels of indirect effects over time. Implications for sustainability research, outcome evaluation and RT&D policy will be discussed.
|
| | | |