Cah. Agric.
Volume 26, Number 6, Novembre-Décembre 2017
Évaluer les impacts des recherches en agriculture sur la société : outils, méthodes, études de cas. Coordonnateurs : Ariane Gaunand, Ludovic Temple, Gilles Trouche
Article Number 65006
Number of page(s) 10
Section Études originales / Original Studies
Published online 21 December 2017
  • Almeida C, Báscolo E. 2006. Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 22: S7–S19. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-311X2006001300002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arnold E, Clark J, Muscio A. 2005. What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance. Science and Public Policy 32: 385–397. DOI: 10.3152/147154305781779335. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barret D, Blundo-Canto G, Dabat MH, Devaux-Spatarakis A, Faure G, Hainzelin E, et al. 2017 : IMPRESS (IMPact des REchercheS au Sud). Guide méthodologique sur l’évaluation des impacts de la recherche agronomique dans les pays du sud. CIRAD, Montpellier. Disponible sur [Google Scholar]
  • Boaz A, Fitzpatrick S, Shaw B. 2009. Assessing the impact of research on policy: a literature review. Science and Public Policy 36: 255–270. DOI: 10.3152/030234209X436545. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bornmann L. 2013. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 217–233. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22803. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bozeman B, Melkers J. 1993. Evaluating R&D impacts: methods and practice. New-York: Springer Science + Business Media, 303 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Bozeman B, Youtie J. 2015. Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives. Presented at the ImpAR Conference. INRA : Paris, France. [Google Scholar]
  • Chevalier JM, Buckles D. 2013. Participatory action research: theory and methods for engaged inquiry. New-York: Routledge, 474 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Donovan C, Hanney S. 2011. The “Payback Framework” explained. Research Evaluation 20: 181–183. DOI: 10.3152/095820211X13118583635756. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gaunand A, Colinet L, Joly PB, Matt M. 2017. Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science. Journal of Technology Transfer. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-017-9605-9. [Google Scholar]
  • Georghiou L, Roesner D. 2000. Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy 29: 657–678. Available from [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hazell P, Slade R. 2014. Policy Research: the search for impact. In: Workshop on best practice methods for assessing the impact of policy-oriented research: summary and recommendations for the CGIAR, Independant Impact Assessment Report. Washington D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • Joly PB, Colinet L, Gaunand A, Lemarié S, Laredo P, Matt M. 2015a. Évaluer l'impact sociétal de la recherche pour apprendre à le gérer : l'approche ASIRPA et l'exemple de la recherche agronomique. Gérer et Comprendre – Les Annales des Mines. L'épreuve des faits 122: 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  • Joly PB, Gaunand A, Colinet L, Larédo P, Lemarié S, Matt M. 2015b. ASIRPA: a comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation 24: 1–14. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kingdon J. 1984. Bridging research and policy: agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New-York: Harper Collins. ed. New-York: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  • Langfeldt L. 2004. Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation 13: 51–62. DOI: /10.3152/147154404781776536. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Matt M, Gaunand A, Joly PB, Colinet L. 2017. Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization. Research Policy 46: 207–218. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Molas-Gallart J, Davies A. 2006. Toward theory-led evaluation: the experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation 27: 64–82. DOI: 10.1177/1098214005281701. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Renkow M, Byerlee D. 2014. Assessing the impact of policy-oriented research: a stocktaking. In: Workshop on best practice methods for assessing the impact of policy-oriented research: summary and recommendations for the CGIAR, Independant Impact Assessment Report. Washington D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • Ruegg R, Feller I. 2003. A Toolkit for Evaluating Public R&D Investment: models, methods, and findings from ATP's first decade. (Grant/Contract Report). Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology. [Google Scholar]
  • Salter AJ, Martin BR. 2001. The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research Policy 30: 509–532. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00091-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Samuel GN, Derrick GE. 2015. Societal impact evaluation: exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation 24(3): 229–241. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Spaapen JM, Van Drooge L. 2011. Introducing “productive interactions” in social assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218. DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876742. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, Grant J, Buxton MJ, on behalf of the Project Retrosight Team. 2014. Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implementation Science 9: 47. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-47. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.