| |
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 251 | |
| 233. |  | Informacion Forestal Concordia (Argentina): INTA, 1983. 47 p. Informacion Forestal Material en una carpeta| Biblioteca(s): INIA Salto Grande. |
|   |
| Registros recuperados : 251 | |
|
|
|
 | Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA Las Brujas. Por información adicional contacte bibliolb@inia.org.uy. |
|
Registro completo
|
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
|
Fecha actual : |
11/07/2022 |
|
Actualizado : |
11/07/2022 |
|
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
|
Circulación / Nivel : |
Internacional - -- |
|
Autor : |
TURNER, J.A.; GUESMI, B.; GIL, J. M.; HEANUE, K.; SIERRA, M.; PERCY, H.; BORTAGARAY, I.; CHAMS, N.; MILNE, C. |
|
Afiliación : |
JAMES A TURNER, Farms Systems and Environment, AgResearch, 10 Bisley Rd, Hamilton 3214, New Zealand; BOUALI GUESMI, Center for Agro-Food Economics and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA). Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Edifici ESAB, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain; JOSÉ M. GIL, Center for Agro-Food Economics and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA). Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Edifici ESAB, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain; KEVIN HEANUE, Evaluation Unit, Teagasc, Mellows Campus, Athenry, Co. Galway H65 R718, Ireland; MIGUEL OSCAR SIERRA PEREIRO, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; HELEN PERCY, Adoption and Practice Change, AgResearch, 10 Bisley Rd, Hamilton 3214, New Zealand; ISABEL BORTAGARAY SABARROS, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; Instituto de Desarrollo Sostenible, Innovación e Inclusión Social - IDIIS, Universidad de la República, Uruguay; NOUR CHAMS, Center for Agro-Food Economics and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA). Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia, Edifici ESAB, 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona), Spain; University Ramon Llull - IQS School of Management Via Augusta 390, 08017, Barcelona, Spain; CATH MILNE, Formerly SRUC, Peter Wilson Building, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK. |
|
Título : |
Evaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda: Emerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay. |
|
Fecha de publicación : |
2022 |
|
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Evaluation and Program Planning, October 2022, Volume 94, 102127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102127 |
|
ISSN : |
0149-7189 |
|
DOI : |
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102127 |
|
Idioma : |
Inglés |
|
Notas : |
Article history: Received 6 August 2021, Revised 27 April 2022, Accepted 25 June 2022, Available online 28 June 2022, Version of Record 6 July 2022.
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: james.turner@agresearch.co.nz (J.A. Turner), bouali.guesmi@upc.edu (B. Guesmi), chema.gil@upc.edu (J.M. Gil), kevin.heanue@teagasc.ie
(K. Heanue), msierra@inia.org.uy (M. Sierra), helen.percy@agresearch.co.nz (H. Percy), isabelbortagaray@gmail.com (I. Bortagaray), nour.chams@upc.edu
(N. Chams), cemilne@live.com (C. Milne). -- This work was supported by the Strategic Partnership; Strategic Science Investment Fund, New Zealand; Scottish Government; Teagasc; Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA) in Uruguay; and the Societal Impact of R&D Investments [IRTA project-61095]. |
|
Contenido : |
ABSTRACT.- Performance-based funding and calls for public-funded science to demonstrate societal impact are encouraging public research organisations to evaluate impact, the so-called impact agenda. This paper explores evaluation methods of four fully or partially public-funded agricultural research organisations and how they are building evaluative capacity to respond to the impact agenda. Drawing on cross-organisational comparison of the readiness of each organisation to implement evaluation, the implications for improving evaluative capacity building (ECB) are discussed. This study extends the current literature on ECB, as very little has focussed on research organisations in general, and particularly agricultural research. Driven by the impact agenda, the organisations are beginning to emphasise summative evaluation. Organisational leaders valuing the demonstration of impact and commitment to building evaluation capacity are important precursors to other aspects of organisational readiness to implement evaluation. However, organisational emphasis remains on using evaluation for accountability and to improve efficiency and allocation of funding. The organisations have yet to systematically embed evaluation processes and capabilities for learning at programme and organisation-levels. There is, therefore, an opportunity to develop organisation and programme-level evaluation processes that inform each other and the pathways to impact from science. To realise this opportunity, organisations could strengthen internal and external networks of evaluation practitioners and academics to bridge the gap between the theory and practice of monitoring and evaluation for learning (MEL) and to begin to reshape organisational culture by using evaluation methods that are grounded in co-production and integrated scientific and societal values.
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. MenosABSTRACT.- Performance-based funding and calls for public-funded science to demonstrate societal impact are encouraging public research organisations to evaluate impact, the so-called impact agenda. This paper explores evaluation methods of four fully or partially public-funded agricultural research organisations and how they are building evaluative capacity to respond to the impact agenda. Drawing on cross-organisational comparison of the readiness of each organisation to implement evaluation, the implications for improving evaluative capacity building (ECB) are discussed. This study extends the current literature on ECB, as very little has focussed on research organisations in general, and particularly agricultural research. Driven by the impact agenda, the organisations are beginning to emphasise summative evaluation. Organisational leaders valuing the demonstration of impact and commitment to building evaluation capacity are important precursors to other aspects of organisational readiness to implement evaluation. However, organisational emphasis remains on using evaluation for accountability and to improve efficiency and allocation of funding. The organisations have yet to systematically embed evaluation processes and capabilities for learning at programme and organisation-levels. There is, therefore, an opportunity to develop organisation and programme-level evaluation processes that inform each other and the pathways to impact from science. To realise this opportunity... Presentar Todo |
|
Palabras claves : |
Agricultural research impact; Building; Monitoring and evaluation, evaluation capacity. |
|
Asunto categoría : |
A50 Investigación agraria |
|
Marc : |
LEADER 03662naa a2200289 a 4500
001 1063412
005 2022-07-11
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a0149-7189
024 7 $a10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102127$2DOI
100 1 $aTURNER, J.A.
245 $aEvaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda$bEmerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
500 $aArticle history: Received 6 August 2021, Revised 27 April 2022, Accepted 25 June 2022, Available online 28 June 2022, Version of Record 6 July 2022. Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: james.turner@agresearch.co.nz (J.A. Turner), bouali.guesmi@upc.edu (B. Guesmi), chema.gil@upc.edu (J.M. Gil), kevin.heanue@teagasc.ie (K. Heanue), msierra@inia.org.uy (M. Sierra), helen.percy@agresearch.co.nz (H. Percy), isabelbortagaray@gmail.com (I. Bortagaray), nour.chams@upc.edu (N. Chams), cemilne@live.com (C. Milne). -- This work was supported by the Strategic Partnership; Strategic Science Investment Fund, New Zealand; Scottish Government; Teagasc; Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA) in Uruguay; and the Societal Impact of R&D Investments [IRTA project-61095].
520 $aABSTRACT.- Performance-based funding and calls for public-funded science to demonstrate societal impact are encouraging public research organisations to evaluate impact, the so-called impact agenda. This paper explores evaluation methods of four fully or partially public-funded agricultural research organisations and how they are building evaluative capacity to respond to the impact agenda. Drawing on cross-organisational comparison of the readiness of each organisation to implement evaluation, the implications for improving evaluative capacity building (ECB) are discussed. This study extends the current literature on ECB, as very little has focussed on research organisations in general, and particularly agricultural research. Driven by the impact agenda, the organisations are beginning to emphasise summative evaluation. Organisational leaders valuing the demonstration of impact and commitment to building evaluation capacity are important precursors to other aspects of organisational readiness to implement evaluation. However, organisational emphasis remains on using evaluation for accountability and to improve efficiency and allocation of funding. The organisations have yet to systematically embed evaluation processes and capabilities for learning at programme and organisation-levels. There is, therefore, an opportunity to develop organisation and programme-level evaluation processes that inform each other and the pathways to impact from science. To realise this opportunity, organisations could strengthen internal and external networks of evaluation practitioners and academics to bridge the gap between the theory and practice of monitoring and evaluation for learning (MEL) and to begin to reshape organisational culture by using evaluation methods that are grounded in co-production and integrated scientific and societal values. © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
653 $aAgricultural research impact
653 $aBuilding
653 $aMonitoring and evaluation, evaluation capacity
700 1 $aGUESMI, B.
700 1 $aGIL, J. M.
700 1 $aHEANUE, K.
700 1 $aSIERRA, M.
700 1 $aPERCY, H.
700 1 $aBORTAGARAY, I.
700 1 $aCHAMS, N.
700 1 $aMILNE, C.
773 $tEvaluation and Program Planning, October 2022, Volume 94, 102127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102127
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
| Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|
