Achieving impact: impact evaluations and narrative simplification

References

• Abbott, H. (2002) Narrative, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Bal, M. (2002) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (2007) Hunting Causes and Using Them: Approaches in Philosophy and Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. and Hardie, J. (2012) Evidence-Based Policy, Oxford University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Chatman, S. (1978) Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film, Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, C. (2011) ‘State of the art in assessing research impact. Introduction to a special issue,’ Research Evaluation, 20, pp. 175–79. doi:10.3152/095820211X13118583635918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan, C. and Hanney, S. (2011) ‘The ‘Payback Framework’ explained,’ Research Evaluation, 20, pp. 181–83. doi:10.3152/095820211X13118583635756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, T., Roback, K., Lundqvist, M., Levin, L. and Carsson, P. (2011) Effektanalys Av Forskningsprogramme Inom Material Från Förnyelsebara Råvaror [Effect Analysis of Research Programmes on Materials from Renewables], VINNOVA, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003) Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. and Forrester, J. (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Duke University Press, Durham NC.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. and Gottweis, H. (eds) (2012) The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, Duke University Press, Durham NC.
   Google Scholar
• Forster, E.M. (1927) Aspects of the Novel, Harcourt, Brace & Co, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Gasper, D. (1996) ‘Analysing policy arguments,’ European Journal of Development Research, 8, pp. 36–62. doi:10.1080/09578819608426652.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, E. and Dyson, L. (2017) ‘Implications of the changing conversation about causality for evaluators,’ American Journal of Evaluation, 38, pp. 29–46. doi:10.1177/1098214016644068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gertler, P., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. and Vermeersch, C. (2016) Impact Evaluation in Practice, Second, Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Girfalco, L. (1991) Dynamics of Technological Change, Van Norstrand Reinhold, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2015) ‘A bibliometric reconstruction of research trails for qualitative investigations of scientific innovations,’ Historical Social Research, 40, pp. 299–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P., Strömwall, L. and Allwood, C.-A. (2000) ‘Effects of reiteration, hindsight bias, and memory on realism in eyewitness confidence,’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, pp. 397–420. doi:10.1002/1099-0720(200009)14:5<397::AID-ACP658>3.0.CO;2-M.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth-Generation Evaluation, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. and Laws, D. (2006) ‘Ordering through discourse’ in Moran, M., Rein, M. and Goodin, R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 251–68.
   Google Scholar
• Hogwood, B. and Gunn, L. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Kontigo. (2016) Effektanalys Av Vinnväxt-Programmet: Analys Av Effekter Och Nytta [Effect Analysis of the Vinnväxt-Programme: Analysis of Effects and Utility], VINNOVA, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Kostoff, R. (1993) ‘Semiquantitative methods for research impact assessment,’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 44, pp. 231–44. doi:10.1016/0040-1625(93)90070-N.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lothe, J. (2000) Narrative in Fiction and Film, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1989) Evidence, Argument and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
   Google Scholar
• Mansfield, E. (1998) ‘Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings,’ Research Policy, 26, pp. 773–76. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00043-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megill, A. (2007) Historical Knowledge, Historical Error: A Contemporary Guide to Practice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Mohr, L. (1995) Impact Analysis for Programme Evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences. (1999) Evaluating Federal Research Programmes: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act, National Academies’ Press, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, C. and Head, R. (2011) ‘Application of logic models in a large scientific research programme,’ Evaluation and Programme Planning, 34, pp. 174–84. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawson, R. and Tilly, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation, Sage Publications, London.
   Google Scholar
• Pen, J. (1985) Among Economists, North Holland, Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Penfield, T., Baker, M., Scoble, R. and Wykes, M. (2014) ‘Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impacts: a review,’ Research Evaluation, 23, pp. 21–32. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K.R. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge, London.
   Google Scholar
• REF (2014, 02) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions, available from http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-02/[ accessed Jun 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Roe, E. (1994) Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice, Duke University Press, Durham NC.
   Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (2008) ‘A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: & an alternative approach to causal research,’ Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5, pp. 11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K. and Larimer, C. (2017) The Public Policy Theory Primer, Westview Press, Boulder CO.
   Google Scholar
• Steel, D. (2008) Across the Boundaries: Extrapolation in Biology and Social Science, Oxford University Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, E. (2013) ‘Editorial,’ Evaluation, 19, pp. 3–4. doi:10.1177/1356389012473814.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. (2006) ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data,’ American Journal of Evaluation, 27, pp. 237–46. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VINNOVA (2017) available from www.vinnova.se [ accessed Jun 2017].
   Google Scholar
• von Bahr, J. (ed). (2014) Hälsoekonomisk Effektanalys Av Forskning Inom Programmet Innovationer För Framtidens Hälsa. [Health Economic Effect Analysis of Research within the Programme ‘Innovation for Future Health’], VINNOVA, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C.H. (1998) ‘Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?’ American Journal of Evaluation, 19, pp. 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• White, M. (2010) ‘A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation,’ Evaluation, 16, pp. 153–64. doi:10.1177/1356389010361562.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. (1973) Political Organizations, Basic Books, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Wooding, S., Hanney, S., Buxton, M. and Grant, J. (2005) ‘Payback arising from research funding: evaluation of the arthritis research campaign,’ Rheumatology, 44, pp. 1145–56. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar