A use-and-transformation model for evaluating public R&D: illustrations from polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)...

Evaluating federally funded research and development (R&D) presents unique challenges to both federal science agencies and evaluators. Often focusing only on outcome evaluative measures (such as productivity or economic value) can shortchange the true value of the federal investment. For example, program directors at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) talk about the "value added" of the new interdisciplinary science centers that they have funded-and they hope to be able to capture how funding can generate increased capacity for new cutting-edge research in the future. The purpose of this paper is to present a use-and-transformation model for evaluating public R&D, which explicitly focuses on measuring capacity-based metrics for evaluation instead of outcome-based metrics. The theory for the model presented here explicitly uses the concept of a Knowledge Value Collective that was introduced by Bozeman and Rogers [Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. D. (2002). A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31(5), 769-794; Rogers, J. D., & Bozeman, B. (2001). "Knowledge value alliances": An alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(1), 23-55].