This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hanberger, A. Articles by Schild, I. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Strategies to Evaluate a University-Industry Knowledge-exchange Programme

Umeå University, Sweden, anders.hanberger{at}ucer.umu.se

Ingrid Schild

Umeå University, Sweden, ingrid.schild{at}soc.umu.se

This article discusses different approaches to evaluating a knowledge-exchange programme designed to foster closer university-industry interaction. It shows how the same policy or programme can be understood and thus evaluated in a number of ways. First, a particular knowledge-exchange programme evaluated by the authors is described. The article then outlines four different methodologies that can be used to evaluate the programme, and assesses it from the perspective of each, outlining the respective strengths and weaknesses of the approaches. The first two evaluation approaches, programme theory evaluation and outcome analysis, tend to be applied in ways that privilege the policy/programme makers’ worldview, and in this sense may be considered ‘management-oriented’ approaches; the second two approaches, policy discourse analysis and qualitative network analysis, are often applied in ways that incorporate a critical stance to this worldview, and may in this sense be considered ‘non-management-oriented’ approaches. The validity of a policy or programme evaluation can be enhanced by adopting a multi-methodological design incorporating both types of approach. Stakeholders are more likely to learn from a programme/policy evaluation and to be receptive to its conclusions if their differing perspectives and success criteria are incorporated into the evaluation.

Key Words: evaluation methodology • innovation policy • knowledge exchange • programme evaluation • university-industry collaboration

Evaluation, Vol. 10, No. 4, 475-492 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389004050217


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Pennisi Public management training economic analysis: a real options approach International Review of Administrative Sciences, September 1, 2006; 72(3): 417 - 429. [Abstract] [PDF]