Minerva

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Public values Research choice Research evaluation Science policy Market failure 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, Frank M. 1979. Scientific productivity, the effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Ann Arbor, MI.: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Auditor General. 1993. Program Evaluation in the Federal Government. Treasury Board of Canada: The Case for Program Evaluation.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1991. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozeman, Barry. 2007. Public Values and Public Interest: Counter-balancing Economic Individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bozeman, Barry. 2002. Public Value Failure and Market Failure. Lead Article, Public Administration Review 62(2): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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).Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bozeman, Barry, and Julia Melkers (eds.). 1993. Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2005. Public Values and Public Failure in U.S. Science Policy. Science and Public Policy 32(2): 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Braybrooke, David, and Charles E. Lindblom. 1963. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, Ernest Peter. 1997. Beauty and the Beast: The Aesthetic Moment in Science. trans. Elizabeth Oehlkers. New York: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Erik, Catherine Slade, Derrick Anderson and Barry Bozeman. 2010. The Public Value of Nanotechnology? Scientometrics 85(1):29–39.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, Christopher. 1992. The Economics of Hope: Essays on Technical Change, Economic Growth and the Environment, London: Pinter Publishers, 1992. London: Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
  23. Garrison, Jim. 2000. Pragmatism and Public Administration. Administration and Society 32(4): 458–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaus, Gerald F. 1990. Value and Justification: The Foundations of Liberal Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, Harry G. 1965. Federal Support of Basic Research: Some Economic Issues. Minerva 3(4): 500–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, Charles I., and John C. Williams. 1998. Measuring the Social Return to R&D. Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(4): 1119–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kevles, Daniel. 1995. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kostoff, Ronald. 2001. The Metrics of Science and Technology. Scientometrics 50(2): 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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).Google Scholar
  30. Kirlin, John. 1996. What Government Must Do Well: Creating Value for Society. Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research 6(1): 161–185.Google Scholar
  31. Leslie, Stuart W. 1993. The Cold War and American Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Link, Albert N. 1996a. Economic Performance Measures for Evaluating Government Sponsored Research. Scientometrics 36(3): 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Link, Albert N. 1996b. Evaluating Public Sector Research & Development. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  34. Luukkonen, Terttu. 2002. Research evaluation in Europe: state of the art, 11 (2): 81-84.Google Scholar
  35. Luukkonen-Gronow, Terttu. 2007. Scientific Research Evaluation: A Review of Methods and Various Contexts of their Application. R&D Management 17(3): 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. Marmolo, Elisabetta. 1999. A Constitutional Theory of Public Goods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 38(1): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martens, Karel. 2009. Equity Concerns and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Opening the Black Box. Washington, DC.: Transportation Research Board, Paper #09-0586.Google Scholar
  40. Nye, Joseph. 1997. In Government We Don’t Trust. Foreign Policy 108(2): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. OECD. In press. Enhancing Public Research Performance through Evaluation, Impact Assessment and Priority Setting. Paris: OECD, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry.Google Scholar
  43. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The Republic of Science: It’s Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubenstein, Albert. 1976. Effectiveness of Federal Civilian-Oriented R&D Programs. Policy Studies Journal 5(2): 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rosenberg, Nathan. 1982. How Exogenous is Science? In Inside the Black Box (NY: Cambridge University Press), p. 141–159.Google Scholar
  46. Ruegg, Rosalie. 1996. “Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of the Advanced Technology Program,” NIST Internal Report 5896.Google Scholar
  47. Ruttan, Vernon. 2006. Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Salasin, John, Lowell Hattery, and Ramsey Thomas. 1980. The Evaluation of Federal Research Programs, MITRE Technical Report MTR-80W123, June 1980.Google Scholar
  49. Sarewitz, Daniel. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Shields, Patricia M. 1996. Pragmatism: Exploring Public Administration’s Policy Imprint. Administration and Society 28(3): 390–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shils, Edward. 1968. Introduction. In Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals, ed. E. Shils. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. iv–v.Google Scholar
  52. Solow, Robert M. 1957. Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39(3): 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Toulmin, Stephen. 1964. The Complexity of Scientific Choice: A Stocktaking. Minerva 2(3): 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Deth, Jan W., and Elinor Scarbrough. 1995. The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  55. Van Houten, Therese, and Harry Hatry. 1987. How to Conduct a Citizen Survey. Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  56. Weinberg, Alvin. 1963. Criteria for Scientific Choice. Minerva 1(2): 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science Policies for Reducing Societal Inequities. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ziman, John. 1968. Public Knowledge: The Social Dimensions of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration and PolicyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Consortium for Science, Policy and OutcomesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations