In the field of science and technology policies, for the most part, evaluation procedures are utilized as a way of measuring the scientific and technological quality or the socio-economic impacts of publicly funded research. Beyond this practice, could evaluation procedures be used as a medium for the ‘moderation’ of struggles, controversies and negotiations in the science and technology policy arena? The present article addresses this question using the German evaluation practice—moulded by a relatively high degree of institutional differentiation and autonomy of the major policy actors—as a background. After some theoretical considerations, a case study is presented illustrating the ‘moderation approach’: a multi-annual monitoring evaluation of eight newly created, publicly funded interdisciplinary clinical research centres at German university hospitals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becher, G. and S. Kuhlmann (eds) (1995) Evaluation of Technology Policy Programs in Germany. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2.
Bozeman, B. and J. Melkers (eds) (1993) Evaluating R & D Impacts: Methods and Practice. Boston, MA: Kluwer Acadamic Publishers.
3.
Braun, D. (1991) Die Einflußmöglichkeiten der Forschungsförderung auf Strukturprobleme der Gesundheitsforschung in der Bundesrepublik, Vol. 15. Bonn: Schriftenreihe zum Programm der Bundesregierung Forschung und Entwicklung im Dienste der Gesundheit.
4.
Braun, D. (1992) Probleme und Perspektiven der Gesundheitsforschung in den Vereinigten Staaten, Frankreich und England, Vol. 23.Bonn: Schriftenreihe zum Programm der Bundesregierung Forschung und Entwicklung im Dienste der Gesundheit.
5.
Braun, D. , S. Hinze, B. Hüsing, S. Kuhlmann, K. Menrad and V. Peter (1997) Vergleichende Analyse Klinischer Forschungszentren in der Frühphase der Bundesförderung. Zwischenbericht zur Prozeßevaluation ‘Interdisziplinäre Zentren für Klinische Forschung an den Hochschulkliniken’. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
6.
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie (BMBF) (1996) Bundesbericht Forschung. Bonn: BMBF.
7.
Bussmann, W. (1996) ‘Democracy and Evaluation's Contribution to Negotiation, Empowerment and Information. Some Findings from Swiss Democratic Experience’, Evaluation2(3): 307–319.
8.
Chelimsky, E. and W. R. Shadish (eds) (1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century, A HandbookThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1991) ‘Introduction’, in W. W. Powell and P. J. DiMaggio (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 2–38. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
10.
Döhler, M. (1991) ‘Policy Networks, Opportunity Structures and Neo-Conservative Reform Strategies in Health Policy’, in B. Marin and R. Mayntz (eds) Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, pp. 235–296. Frankfurt: Campus; Westview Press.
11.
Edquist, Ch. (ed.) (1997) Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations.London: Pinter.
12.
Fetterman, D. M. , S. J. Kaftarian and A. Wandersman (eds) (1996) Empowerment Evaluation. Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Finne, H. , M. Levin and T. Nilssen (1995) ‘Trailing Research. A Model for Useful Program Evaluation’, Evaluation1(1): 11–31.
14.
Georghiou, L. (1995) ‘Research Evaluation in European National Science and Technology Systems’, Research Evaluation5(1): 3–10.
15.
Gibbons, M. , C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
16.
Grande, E. (1995) ‘Regieren in verflochtenen Verhandlungssystemen’, in R. Mayntz and F. W. Scharpf (eds) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, pp. 327–368. Frankfurt: Campus, Westview Press.
17.
Grupp, H. (ed.) (1992) Dynamics of Science-Based Innovations. Berlin: Springer.
18.
Grupp, H. (1994) ‘Technology at the Beginning of the 21st Century’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management6(4): 379–409.
19.
Guba, E. G. and Y. S. Lincoln (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Hart, P. and M. Kleiboer (1995/96) ‘Policy Controversies in the Negotiatory State’, Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization8(4): 5–25.
21.
Hicks, E. (1995/96) ‘Forethoughts’, Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization8(4): 3–4.
22.
Jansen, D. (1991) ‘Policy Networks and Change: The Case of High-Tec Super Conductors’, in R. Mayntz and B. Marin (eds) Policy Networks. Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, pp. 137–174. Frankfurt: Campus; Westview Press.
23.
Keck, O. (1993) ‘The National System for Technical Innovation in Germany’, in R. R. Nelson (ed.) National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis, pp. 115–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Krull, W. and F. Meyer-Krahmer (1996) ‘Science, Technology, and Innovation in Germany—Changes and Challenges in the 1990s’, in W. Krull and F. Meyer-Krahmer (eds) Science and Technology in Germany, pp. 3–29. London: Cartermill.
25.
Kuhlmann, S. (1995) ‘Patterns of Science and Technology Policy Evaluation in Germany’, Research Evaluation5(1): 23–33.
26.
Kuhlmann, S. and D. Holland (1995) Evaluation von Technologiepolitik in Deutschland—Konzepte, Anwendung, Perspektiven, vol. 12.Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
27.
Kuhlmann, S. and F. Meyer-Krahmer (1995) ‘Practice of Technology Policy Evaluation in Germany: Introduction and Overview’, in G. Becher and S. Kuhlmann (eds) Evaluation of Technology Policy Programs in Germany, pp. 3–29. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
28.
Kuhlmann, S. and G. Reger (1996) ‘Technology-Intensive SMEs: Policies Supporting the Management of Growing Technological Complexity’, in W. Cannell and B. Dankbaar (eds) Technology Management and Public Policy in the European Union, pp. 73–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
de Laat, B. (1996) ‘Scripts for the Future. Technology Foresight, Strategic Evaluation and Socio-Technical Networks: The Confrontation of Script-Based Scenarios’, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.
30.
Lundvall, B. A. (1988) ‘Innovation as an Interactive Process: from User–Producer Interaction to the National System of Innovation’, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson and G. Silverberg (eds) Technical Innovation and Economic Theory. London.
31.
Mayntz, R. (1983) Implementation Politischer Programme II. Ansätze zur Theoriebildung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
32.
Mayntz, R. and F. W. Scharpf (1995) ‘Steuerung und Selbstorganization in staatsnahen Sektoren’, in H. G. Dieselben (ed.) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und Politische Steuerung, pp. 9–38. Frankfurt: Campus, Westview Press.
33.
Mazmanian, D. A. and P. Sabatier (eds) (1981) Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
34.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. and U. Kuntze (1992) ‘Bestandsaufnahme der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik’, in K. Grimmer, J, Häusler, S. Kuhlmann and G. Simonis (eds) Politische Techniksteuerung — Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven, pp. 95–118. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
35.
Mowery, D. C. (1994) Science and Technology Policy in Interdependent Economies. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36.
Patton, M. Q. (1997) Utilization-Focused Evaluation. The New Century Text.Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
37.
Reger, G. and S. Kuhlmann (1995) European Technology Policy in Germany. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
38.
Rip, A. (1990) ‘Implementation and Evaluation of Science & Technology Priorities and Programs’, in S. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (eds) The Research System in Transition, pp. 263–280. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39.
Rip, A. (1994) The Postmodern Research System, paper presented at the European Research Conference in ‘Il Ciocco’ (November), Tuscany; and at the European Science Forum on the History of Science Policy in Europe (December), Florence.
40.
Riquier, G. (1997) Stakeholders' Participation in Public Policy Evaluations: Impact on Organizational Learning, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the European Evaluation Society (EES) (March), Stockholm.
41.
Schmoch, U. , S. Breiner, K. Cuhls, S. Hinze and G. Münt (1996) ‘The Organization of Interdisciplinarity—Research Structures in the Areas of Medical Lasers and Neural Networks’, in G. Reger and U. Schmoch (eds) Organization of Science and Technology at the Watershed. The Academic and Industrial Perspective, pp. 267–372. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
42.
Schön, D. and M. Rein (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
43.
Smith, A. , D. Preston, D. Buchanan and S. Jordan (1997) ‘When Two Worlds Collide. Conducting a Management Evaluation in a Medical Environment’, Evaluation3(1): 49–68.
44.
Stucke, A. (1993) Institutionalisierung der Forschungspolitik. Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministeriums. Frankfurt: Campus, Westview Press.
45.
Willke, H. (1992/96) Ironie des Staates. Die Grundlinien einer Staatstheorie polyzentrischer Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
