Date: 09 Feb 2011
Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Here we present the framework of a new approach to assessing the capacity of research programs to achieve social goals. Research evaluation has made great strides in addressing questions of scientific and economic impacts. It has largely avoided, however, a more important challenge: assessing (prospectively or retrospectively) the impacts of a given research endeavor on the non-scientific, non-economic goals—what we here term “public values”—that often are the core public rationale for the endeavor. Research programs are typically justified in terms of their capacity to achieve public values, and that articulation of public values is pervasive in science policy-making. We outline the elements of a case-based approach to “public value mapping” of science policy, with a particular focus on developing useful criteria and methods for assessing “public value failure,” with an intent to provide an alternative to “market failure” thinking that has been so powerful in science policy-making. So long as research evaluation avoids the problem of public values, science policy decision makers will have little help from social science in making choices among competing paths to desired social outcomes.
Adams, Guy B. 1992. Enthralled with Modernity: The Historical Context of Knowledge and Theory Development in Public Administration. Public Administration Review 52(4): 363–373.CrossRef
Adams, John. 2006. The Failure of Seat-Belt Legislation. In Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World, eds. M. Verweij, and M. Thompson, 132–154. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Andrews, Frank M. 1979. Scientific productivity, the effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Ann Arbor, MI.: University of Michigan Press.
Auditor General. 1993. Program Evaluation in the Federal Government. Treasury Board of Canada: The Case for Program Evaluation.
Audretsch, David B., Barry Bozeman, Kathryn Combs, Maryanne Feldman, Albert Link, Donald Siegel, Paula Stephan, Gregory Tassey, and Charles Wessner. 2002. The Economics of Science and Technology. Journal of Technology Transfer 27(2): 155–203.CrossRef
Barbarie, Alain. 1993. Evaluating Federal R&D in Canada. In Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice, eds. Barry Bozeman, and Julia Melkers, 155–162. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1991. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.CrossRef
Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counter-balancing Economic Individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public Value Failure and Market Failure. Lead Article, Public Administration Review 62(2): 145–161.CrossRef
Bozeman, Barry 2003. Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method. In D. Sarewitz, et. al. Knowledge Flows & Knowledge Collectives: Understanding the Role of Science & Technology Policies in Development. 2 (1).
Bozeman, Barry, James Dietz, and Monica Gaughan. 2001. Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management 22(7/8): 716–740.CrossRef
Bozeman, Barry, and Julia Melkers (eds.). 1993. Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice. Boston: Kluwer.
Bozeman, Barry, and Juan R. Rogers. 2002. A Churn Model of Scientific Knowledge Value: Internet Researchers as a Knowledge Value Collective. Research Policy 31(5): 769–794.CrossRef
Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public Values and Public Failure in U.S. Science Policy. Science and Public Policy 32(2): 119–136.CrossRef
Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press.
Budd, John, and Lynn Connaway. 1997. University Faculty and Networked Information: Results of a Survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48(9): 843–852.CrossRef
Cummings, Ronald, and Laura Taylor. 1999. Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review 89(3): 649–665.CrossRef
Feeney, Mary, and Barry Bozeman. 2007. The 2004–2005 Influenza Episode as a Case of Public Failure. Journal of Public Integrity 9(2): 179–195.
Fischer, Ernest Peter. 1997. Beauty and the Beast: The Aesthetic Moment in Science. trans. Elizabeth Oehlkers. New York: Plenum Trade.
Fisher, Erik, Catherine Slade, Derrick Anderson and Barry Bozeman. 2010. The Public Value of Nanotechnology? Scientometrics 85(1):29–39.
Freeman, Christopher. 1992. The Economics of Hope: Essays on Technical Change, Economic Growth and the Environment, London: Pinter Publishers, 1992. London: Thompson Learning.
Garrison, Jim. 2000. Pragmatism and Public Administration. Administration and Society 32(4): 458–478.CrossRef
Gaus, Gerald F. 1990. Value and Justification: The Foundations of Liberal Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Harry G. 1965. Federal Support of Basic Research: Some Economic Issues. Minerva 3(4): 500–514.CrossRef
Jones, Charles I., and John C. Williams. 1998. Measuring the Social Return to R&D. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(4): 1119–1135.CrossRef
Kevles, Daniel. 1995. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kostoff, Ronald. 2001. The Metrics of Science and Technology. Scientometrics 50(2): 353–361.CrossRef
Holdren, John P. 2009. Science and Technology Policy in the Obama Administration, Remarks for the Business Higher Education Forum, Washington, D.C., 16 June (Powerpoint presentation).
Kirlin, John. 1996. What Government Must Do Well: Creating Value for Society. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research 6(1): 161–185.
Leslie, Stuart W. 1993. The Cold War and American Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Link, Albert N. 1996a. Economic Performance Measures for Evaluating Government Sponsored Research. Scientometrics 36(3): 325–342.CrossRef
Link, Albert N. 1996b. Evaluating Public Sector Research & Development. New York: Greenwood.
Luukkonen, Terttu. 2002. Research evaluation in Europe: state of the art, 11 (2): 81-84.
Luukkonen-Gronow, Terttu. 2007. Scientific Research Evaluation: A Review of Methods and Various Contexts of their Application. R&D Management 17(3): 207–221.CrossRef
Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marburger, John. 2005. Speech at the 30th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D.C. (April 21), available at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0421marburgerText.shtml.
Marmolo, Elisabetta. 1999. A Constitutional Theory of Public Goods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 38(1): 27–42.CrossRef
Martens, Karel. 2009. Equity Concerns and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Opening the Black Box. Washington, DC.: Transportation Research Board, Paper #09-0586.
Nye, Joseph. 1997. In Government We Don’t Trust. Foreign Policy 108(2): 99–111.CrossRef
OECD. 1997. The Evaluation of Scientific Research: selected experiences. Paris: OECD, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy. Document OECD/GD(97)194. http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/scs/prod/e_97-194.htm.
OECD. In press. Enhancing Public Research Performance through Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Priority Setting. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.
Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The Republic of Science: It’s Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.CrossRef
Rubenstein, Albert. 1976. Effectiveness of Federal Civilian-Oriented R&D Programs. Policy Studies Journal 5(2): 217–227.CrossRef
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1982. How Exogenous is Science? In Inside the Black Box (NY: Cambridge University Press), p. 141–159.
Ruegg, Rosalie. 1996. “Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of the Advanced Technology Program,” NIST Internal Report 5896.
Ruttan, Vernon. 2006. Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? New York: Oxford University Press.
Salasin, John, Lowell Hattery, and Ramsey Thomas. 1980. The Evaluation of Federal Research Programs, MITRE Technical Report MTR-80W123, June 1980.
Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Shields, Patricia M. 1996. Pragmatism: Exploring Public Administration’s Policy Imprint. Administration and Society 28(3): 390–411.CrossRef
Shils, Edward. 1968. Introduction. In Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals, ed. E. Shils. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. iv–v.
Solow, Robert M. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3): 312–320.CrossRef
Toulmin, Stephen. 1964. The Complexity of Scientific Choice: A Stocktaking. Minerva 2(3): 343–359.CrossRef
Van Deth, Jan W., and Elinor Scarbrough. 1995. The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University.
Van Houten, Therese, and Harry Hatry. 1987. How to Conduct a Citizen Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.
Weinberg, Alvin. 1963. Criteria for Scientific Choice. Minerva 1(2): 159–171.CrossRef
Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 139–150.CrossRef
Ziman, John. 1968. Public Knowledge: The Social Dimensions of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation
Volume 49, Issue 1 , pp 1-23
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Public values
- Research choice
- Research evaluation
- Science policy
- Market failure
- Industry Sectors