Today's organizations perform evaluations in order to demonstrate their trustworthiness to the outside world and in order to produce information for use by management. In the planning and application of specific evaluations, different participants or stakeholders very often have different or conflicting agendas. In recent years, the use of evaluations in organizations has grown rapidly and we have witnessed the rise of a new bureaucratic instrument in the realm of knowledge production: the internal evaluation. Such evaluations produce a set of data as part of the evaluation process, and the long-term impact of the use of these data on organizational activities is not normally given serious consideration when the use of evaluations in organizations is discussed. These evaluations have become a major factor in the management of organizations, but the academic literature on evaluation very rarely discusses the impact of this instrument of governance on the behaviour and activity of members of the organization.
Arnold, E. and K. Balázs (1998) Methods in the Evaluation of Public Funded Basic Research: A Review for OECD. Brighton: Technopolis .
2.
Audétat, M. (2001) ‘Re-thinking Science, Re-thinking Society’ , Social Studies of Science31: 950–956 .
3.
Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press .
4.
Beck, U. and W. Bonss (1989) ‘Verwissenschaftlichung ohne Aufklärung? Zum Strukturwandel von Sozialwissenschaft und Praxis’, in U. Beck and W. Bonss (eds) Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? Analyse zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens, pp. 7–45. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag .
5.
Beck, U. , S. Lash and A. Giddens (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press .
6.
Bourdieu, P. (1998) Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: UVK Universitätsverlag .
7.
Bourdieu, P. (2004) Science of Science and Reflexivity. Oxford: Polity .
8.
Bozeman, B. , J. S. Dietz and M. Gaughan (2001) Scientific and Technical Human Capital: An Alternative Model for Research Evaluation’ , International Journal of Technology Management22: 716–740 .
9.
Bradley, W. J. and K. C. Schaffer (1996) The Uses and Misuses of Data and Models: The Mathematization of the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
10.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991) ‘Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation’ , Organization Science: Special Issue2: 40–57 .
11.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1998) ‘Organizing Knowledge’ , California Management Review40: 90-90 .
12.
Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (2001) ‘Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective’ , Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences12: 198–213 .
13.
Brunsson, N. and B. Jacobsson (2000) A World of Standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
14.
Bryant, C. G. A. (1995) Practical Sociology: Post-Empiricism and the Reconstruction of Theory and Application. Cambridge: Polity Press .
15.
Burt, R. S. (2002) ‘The Social Capital of Structural Holes’, in M. F. Guillén , R. Collins , P. England and M. Meyer (eds) The New Economic Sociology, pp. 149–190. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
16.
Campbell, D.T. (1988) ‘The Experimenting Society: Can We Be Scientific in Applied Social Science?’, in E. S. Overman (ed.) Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, pp. 290–334. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
17.
Campbell, D.T. and J. C. Stanley (1968) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally .
18.
Chelimsky , Eleanor (1997) ‘The Coming Transformation of Evaluation’, in E. Chelimsky and W. R. Shadish , Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook, pp. 1–16. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
19.
Cicchetti, D. (1991) ‘The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submission’ , Behavioral and Brain Sciences1: 119–186 .
20.
Clark, B. R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon .
21.
Cohen, W. M. and D. A. Levinthal (1990) ‘Absorptive Capability’ , Administrative Science Quarterly35: 128–152 .
22.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002) MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. London: Taylor & Francis .
23.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000) ‘The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations’ , Research Policy29: 109–123 .
24.
Frederiksen, L. F. , F. Hansson and S. B. Wenneberg (2003) ‘The Agora and the Role of Research Evaluation’ , Evaluation9(2): 149–172 .
25.
Fuchs, S. and J. H. Turner (1986) ‘What Makes a Science “Mature?”: Patterns of Organizational Control in Scientific Production’ , Sociological Theory4: 143–150 .
26.
Fuller, S. (2000a) Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for our Times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
27.
Fuller, S. (2000) The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham: Open University Press .
28.
Fuller, S. (2001) Knowledge Management Foundations. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann .
29.
Gibbons, M. , C. Limoges , H. Nowotny , S. S. P. Schwartzman and M. Trow (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE .
30.
Gieryn, T. (1983) ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’ , American Sociological Review48: 781–795 .
31.
Godin, B. (1998) ‘The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies’ , Social Studies of Science28: 465–483 .
32.
Grant, R. M. (1996) ‘Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm’ , Strategic Management Journal17: 109–122 .
33.
Greene, J. C. (1996) ‘Qualitative Evaluation and Scientific Citizenship: Reflections and Refractions’ , Evaluation2: 277–289 .
34.
Hackett, E. J. (1990) ‘Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture of Academic Science’ ,Journal of Higher Education61: 241–279 .
35.
Hansson, F. (2002) ‘How to Evaluate and Select New Scientific Knowledge? Taking the Social Dimension Seriously in the Evaluation of Research Quality’ , Vest15: 27–52 .
36.
Hansson, F. (2003) Forskningsevaluering, kvalitet og organisation. Nye roller for forskningsevalueringen i organisationer. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur .
37.
Hardwig, J. (1991) ‘The Role of Trust in Knowledge’ , Journal of Philosophy88: 693–700 .
38.
Hohendahl, P. U. (2004) ‘Humboldt in Amerika? Zur Genese der amerikanischen Forschungsuniversität’ , Leviathan32: 225–249 .
39.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981) Manufacture of Knowledge:An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
40.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
41.
Kogut, B. (2000) ‘The Network as Knowledge: Generative Rules and the Emergence of Structure’ , Strategic Management Journal21: 405–425 .
42.
Kostoff, R. N. (1995) ‘Research Requirements for Research Impact Assessment’ , Research Policy24: 869–882 .
43.
Krislov , Samuel (2002) ‘Governance’, in Kermit L. Hall (ed.) The Oxford Companion to American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press . Oxford Reference Online, Oxford University Press Business School in Copenhagen, 23 Aug. 2004, http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Mainandentry=t122.e0382
44.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
45.
Lassman, P. , I. Velody and H. Martins , eds (1989) Max Weber's ‘Science as a Vocation’. London: Unwin Hyman .
46.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
47.
Leeuw, F. L. (1991) ‘Policy Theories, Knowledge Utilization, and Evaluation’ , Knowledge and Policy4: 73–91 .
48.
Leeuw, F. L. , R. C. Rist and R. C. Sonnichsen , eds (1994) ‘Can Government Learn?’, Comparative Perspectives on Evaluation and Organizational Learning: Can Governments Learn?, pp. 125–144. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press .
49.
Lundberg, G. A. (1939) ‘Contemporary Positivism in Sociology’ , American Sociological Review4: 42–55 .
50.
Lundvall, B. Å. (1997) The Role of National Innovation Systems in Creativity, Innovation and Job Creation. Paris: OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry .
51.
Lundvall, B. Å. (2002) Innovation, Growth and Social Cohesion: The Danish Model. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing .
52.
Martin, B. R. (2003) ‘The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University’, in A. Geuna , A. J. Salter and W. E. Steinmueller (eds) Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance, pp. 7–29. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing .
53.
Mayntz, R. and U. Schimank (1998) ‘Linking Theory and Practice: Introduction’ , Research Policy27: 755-755 .
54.
Merton, R. K. (1973) Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago .
55.
Merton, R. K. and H. Zuckerman (1971) ‘Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science’, Minerva9-9.
56.
Mouritsen, J. (1997) Tællelighedens regime: Synlighed, ansvarlighed og økonomistyring gennem mål og rammer i statslige institutioner. Copenhagen: Juristog Økonomiforbundets Forlag .
57.
Nahapiel, J. and S. Ghoshal (1998) ‘Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage’ , Academy of Management Review23: 242–266 .
58.
Nonaka, I. (1994) ‘A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation’ , Organization Science5(1): 14–37 .
59.
Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press .
60.
Nowotny, H. , M. Gibbons and P. Scott (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press .
61.
OECD (1997) The Evaluation of Scientific Research: Selected Experiences. OECD/GD (97) 194 ed.Paris: OECD .
62.
OECD (1999) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard: Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Economies. Paris: OECD .
63.
OECD (2002) Frascati Manual 2002: The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Paris: OECD .
64.
Pollitt, C. (1996) ‘Justification by Works or by Faith? Evaluating the New Public Management’ , Evaluation1: 133–154 .
65.
Pollitt, C. (2003) ‘Public Management Reform: Reliable Knowledge and International Experience’ , OECD Journal on Budgeting3: 121–136 .
66.
Popper, K. (1995) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge .
67.
Porter, T. M. (1995) Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .
68.
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
69.
Rogers, J. D. and B. Bozeman (2001) ‘“Knowledge Value Alliances”:An Alternative to the R&D Project Focus in Evaluation’ , Science, Technology and Human Values26: 23–55 .
70.
Sanderson, I. (2002) ‘Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making’ , Public Administration80: 1–22 .
71.
Schwandt, T. A. (2002) Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang .
72.
Shadish,W. R. , S. Chacon-Moscoso and J. Sanchez-Meca (2005) ‘Evidence-Based Decision Making: Enhancing Systematic Reviews of Program Evaluation Results in Europe’ , Evaluation11: 95–109 .
73.
Sherman, B. (1996) ‘Governing Science: Patents and Public Sector Research’, in M. Power (ed.) Accounting and Science: Natural Inquiry and Commercial Reason, pp. 170–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
74.
Sitkin, S. B. and D. Stickel (1996) ‘The Road to Hell: The Dynamics of Distrust in an Era of Quality’, in R. M. Kramer and T. R. Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, pp. 196–215. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
75.
Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000) High Impact Internal Evaluation:A Practitioner's Guide to Evaluating and Consulting Inside Organizations. London: SAGE .
76.
Stehr, N. (1994) Knowledge Society. London: SAGE .
77.
Strathern, M. (2000) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge .
78.
Toulmin, S. and B. Gustavsen (1996) Beyond Theory: Changing Organizations through Participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
79.
Weber, M. (1972) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr .
80.
Weber, M. (1992) Wissenschaft als Beruf 1917/1919: Politik als Beruf 1919. Tübingen: Mohr .
81.
Weingart, P. (2000) ‘From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old Wine in New Bottles?’ , Social Science Information36: 591–613 .
82.
Weiss, C. H. (1999) ‘The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy’ , Evaluation5: 468–486 .
83.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
84.
Whitley, R. (2000) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
85.
Wynne, B. (1996) ‘May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert–Lay Knowledge Divide’, in S. Lash , B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, pp. 44–83. London: SAGE .
86.
Ziman, J. (2000) Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
