Through a comparative study of the United Kingdom and Spain, this article addresses the effect of different research governance structures on the functioning and uses of research evaluation. It distinguishes three main evaluation uses: distributive, improvement, and controlling. Research evaluation in the United Kingdom plays important distributive and improvement roles while the Spanish evaluation system plays, mainly, a controlling function and a minor distributive role. The differences that the article identifies should not be attributed to alleged different positions of the two countries in a putative research evaluation learning curve. Evaluation practice fits its national research governance structure.
ab IorwerthA. (2005). Methods of evaluating university research around the world. Ottawa, ON: Department of Finance.
2.
AndersonI. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80, 1–22.
3.
ArnoldE. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13, 3–17.
4.
BarkerK. (2007). The UK research assessment exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16, 3–12.
5.
BusteloM. (2006). The potential role of standards and guidelines in the development of an evaluation culture in Spain. Evaluation, 12, 437–453.
6.
ChelimskyE. (2006). The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. In ShawI. F.GreeneJ. C.MarkM. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 33–55). London, England: Thousand Oaks.
7.
ChenH.-T. (2005). Practical program evaluation. Assessing and improving planning, implementation and effectiveness. London, England: Thousand Oaks.
8.
CorynC. L. S. (2007). Evaluation of researchers and their research: Toward making the implicit explicit. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.
9.
CorynC. L. S.HattieJ. A.ScrivenM.HartmannD. J. (2007). Models and mechanisms for evaluation government-funded research: An international comparison. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 437–457.
10.
CozzensS. E. (2003). Frameworks for evaluating S&T policy in the United States. In ShapiraP.KuhlmannS. (Eds.), Learning form science and technology evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp. 54–64). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
11.
CozzensS. E.TurpinT. (2000). Processes and mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring research outcomes from higher education: International comparisons. Research Evaluation, 9, 3–4.
12.
Cruz-CastroL.Sanz-MenéndezL. (2008). Research evaluation in transition. individual versus organisational assessment in Spain. In WhitleyR.GlaserJ. (Eds.), The changing governance of sciences. The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 205–223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
13.
DarvasG. (1997). The political and economic context of research evaluation in Eastern Europe. In FrankelM. S.CaveJ. (Eds.), Evaluating science and scientists. An East-West Dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe (pp. 18–27). Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.
14.
De CamposA. L. (2010, October). Economic impact assessment within the research councils. Report to RCUK Strategy Unit and Performance Evaluation Group.
15.
FéronE.CrowleyJ. (2003). From research policy to the governance of research? A theoretical framework and some empirical conclusions. Innovation, 16, 369–393.
16.
FrankelM. S.CaveJ. (1997). Introduction. In FrankelM. S.CaveJ. (Eds.), Evaluating science and scientists. An East-West dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe (pp. 1–6). Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.
17.
FrederiksenL. F.HanssonF.WennebergS. B. (2003). The agora and the role of research evaluation. Evaluation, 9, 149–172.
18.
GeorghiouL. (1995). Research evaluation in European national science and technology systems. Research Evaluation, 5, 3–10.
19.
GeunaA.MartinB. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
20.
GibbonsM.GeorghiouL. (1987). Evaluation of research: A selection of current practices. Paris, France: OECD.
21.
Jiménez-ContrerasE.de Moya AnegónF.López-CózarE. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the national commission for the evaluation of research activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32, 123–142.
22.
JordanA. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and Planning D. Government and Policy, 26, 17–33.
23.
KuhlmannS. (2003). Evaluation as a source of ‘strategic intelligence'. In ShapiraP.KuhlmannS. (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp. 352–375). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
24.
LascoumesP. (1998). Pratiques et Modèles de l'Evaluation. In KesslerM.-C.LascoumesP.SetbonM.ThoenigJ.-C. (Eds.), Evaluation des Politiques Publiques (pp. 23–34). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
25.
LebowR.SpitzerR. (2002). Accountability. Freedom and responsibility without control. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
26.
MarjanovicS.HanneyS.WoodingS. (2009). A historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their current themes and challenges. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
27.
MartinB. (1997). Factors affecting the acceptance of evaluation results. In FrankelM. S.CaveJ. (Eds.), Evaluating science and scientists. An East-West dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe (pp. 28–45). Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press.
28.
MartinB. (2011). The research excellence framework and the impact agenda: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?Research Evaluation, 20, 247–254.
29.
MartinB.WhitleyR. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise: A case of regulatory capture? In WhitleyR.GlässerJ.EngwallL. (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production. Changing authority relationships in the science and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 51–80). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
30.
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. (2009). Programa de Trabajo '09. Plan Nacional de I + D + I. Madrid: Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT).
31.
Polanyi. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–74.
32.
RichR. F. (1979). Translating evaluation into policy. London, England: Sage.
33.
RipA. (2003). Societal challenges for R&D evaluation. In ShapiraP.KuhlmannS. (Eds.), Learning form science and technology evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp. 32–53). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
34.
Sanz-MenéndezL. (1995). Research actors and the state: Research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain. Research Evaluation, 5, 79–88.
35.
ScrivenM. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In TylerR. W.GagnéR. M.ScrivenM. (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (Vol. 1, pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
36.
ScrivenM. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
StufflebeamD. L.ShinkfieldA. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation. A self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Boston/Dordrecht/Lancaster: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
38.
TeirlinckP. (Ed.). (2011). Optimizing the research and innovation policy mix: The practice and challenges of impact assessment in Europe. Brussels.
von TunzelmannN.MbulaE. K. (2003). Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999(Report for the Joint Funding Bodieś Review of Research Assessments). Brighton, England: SPRU.
41.
WhitleyR.GlässerJ. (Eds.). (2007). The changing governance of the sciences: the advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
