Evaluating Research Administration: Methods and Utility

被引:0
作者
Marina, Sarah [1 ]
Davis-Hamilton, Zoya [2 ]
Charmanski, Kara E. [3 ]
机构
[1] Tufts Univ, Off Vice Provost Res, Off Res Dev, 136 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[2] Tufts Univ, Off Res Adm, Off Vice Provost Res, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[3] Tufts Univ, Business Operat & Finance, Off Vice Provost Res, Boston, MA 02111 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Three studies were jointly conducted by the Office of Research Administration and Office of Proposal Development at Tufts University to evaluate the services within each respective office. The studies featured assessments that used, respectively, (1) quantitative metrics; (2) a quantitative satisfaction survey with limited qualitative questions; and (3) a mixed-methods survey that evaluated both satisfaction and learning using quantitative metrics and equally weighted qualitative responses. These studies are used as case studies, and are described congruently to demonstrate that varying assessment methods have utility, separately and together, in evaluating the research administration enterprise. Findings illustrate that several factors influence which method should be used, including the goals of the evaluation itself. Additionally, findings indicate that judicial use of quantitative metrics supplemented with qualitative measures in mixed methods approaches allows the user to paint a more comprehensive and detailed picture. Finally, methods and inferences from such studies can be leveraged to gain or sustain competitive advantage among peer institutions and position the research administration enterprise for future success.
引用
收藏
页码:95 / 114
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   HEALTH STATE UTILITY FOR COMORBID CONDITIONS: EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT ESTIMATION METHODS [J].
Rendas-Baum, R. .
VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 :S322-S322
[32]   Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Noninvasive Methods for Measuring Tear Film Surface Quality [J].
Szczesna, Dorota H. ;
Iskander, D. Robert ;
Kasprzak, Henryk T. .
PHOTONICS LETTERS OF POLAND, 2011, 3 (01) :35-37
[33]   COMPARATIVE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: CONCEPTS, METHODS AND RESEARCH AREAS [J].
Wollmann, Hellmut .
BARATARIA-REVISTA CASTELLANO-MANCHEGA DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES, 2020, (27) :18-31
[34]   A Research on Methods and Applications of Case Study in Public Administration [J].
He Yuan-zeng ;
Cheng Cheng ;
Xu Qing-shan ;
Yang Li-hua .
2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MANAGEMENT SCIENCE & ENGINEERING (ICMSE), 2014, :1977-1982
[35]   Culturally sensitive research methods for educational administration and leadership [J].
Jiang, Guodong ;
Lin, Huiqi .
EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 2024, 76 (07) :2095-2097
[36]   Research Methods in Public Administration and Public Management: An Introduction [J].
van der Voet, Joris .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2014, 74 (06) :810-813
[37]   The Unique Utility of Focus Groups for Mixed-Methods Research [J].
Cyr, Jennifer .
PS-POLITICAL SCIENCE & POLITICS, 2017, 50 (04) :1038-1042
[38]   Picturing probation: Exploring the utility of visual methods in comparative research [J].
Carr, Nicola ;
Bauwens, Aline ;
Bosker, Jacqueline ;
Donker, Andrea ;
Robinson, Gwen ;
Sucic, Ines ;
Worrall, Anne .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROBATION, 2015, 7 (03) :179-200
[39]   RESEARCH UTILITY OF NONINVASIVE METHODS FOR MEASUREMENT OF CARDIAC-OUTPUT [J].
HINDERLITER, AL ;
FITZPATRICK, MA ;
SCHORK, N ;
JULIUS, S .
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 1987, 41 (04) :419-425
[40]   Evaluating Utility Streams [J].
Binmore, Ken .
HOMO OECONOMICUS-JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS, 2021, 38 (1-4) :1-14