The Impact Profile Approach to Policy Merit
dc.contributor.author | Mohr, Lawrence | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-13T19:45:59Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-13T19:45:59Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1999 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Mohr, Lawrence (1999). "The Impact Profile Approach to Policy Merit." Evaluation Review 23(2): 212-249. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67741> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0193-841X | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67741 | |
dc.description.abstract | In writings on the theory of valuing, many take the position that impacts on the relevant outcome dimensions should be aggregated to arrive at one summary assessment of program merit. A contrary position is taken here, specifying that the impacts should be kept separate and unweighted and expressed only in their own original measurement scales. All impacts, however, should be portrayed, including those for which no rigorous data analysis has been carried out. It is argued that aggregating, even by the individual stakeholder, is both futile and misleading. An extensive evaluation of the effects of research grants on the university is included as a full-scale illustration of the method. Financial impacts are considered, as well as impacts on faculty and student quality, on university prestige, and on the quality of instruction. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 3108 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 170064 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.publisher | Sage Publications | en_US |
dc.title | The Impact Profile Approach to Policy Merit | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Public Health | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67741/2/10.1177_0193841X9902300205.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1177/0193841X9902300205 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Evaluation Review | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | American Council on Education. 1983. American Universities and Colleges. Vol. 12. Washington, DC: Author. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | American Council on Education. 1992. American Universities and Colleges. Vol. 14. Washington, DC: Author | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Astin, A. W. 1993. What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Astin, A. W., and M. J. Chang. 1995, September/October. Colleges that emphasize research and teaching: Can you have your cake and eat it too? Change 44-49. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Blackorby, C. 1990. Economic policy in a second-best environment. Canadian Journal of Economics 23(4): 748-771. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Clotfelter, C. T. 1996. Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cronbach, L. J. 1982. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Edwards, W., and J. R. Newman. 1982. Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Feller, I. 1995. The determinants of research competitiveness among universities: A critical review of the issue and the literature. Paper prepared for the AAAS Conference on Assessing Research Competitiveness, April 21-23. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Geiger, R., and I. Feller. 1995. The dispersion of academic research in the 1980s. Journal of Higher Education 66:336-360. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Goldberger, M. L., B. A. Maher, and P. E. Flattau (eds.). 1995. Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington: National Academy Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Grossman, R., and C. Leroux. 1996. Research grants actually add to tuition costs, study claims. Chicago Tribune, January 28: 1-1, 15-15. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Jackman, R. W., and R. M. Siverson. 1996. Rating the rating: An analysis of the National Research Council's appraisal of political science Ph.D. programs. PS: Political Science and Politics 29(2): 155-160. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Jones, L. V., G. Lindzey, and P. E. Coggeshall. 1982. An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the united states. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Katz, R. S., and M. Eagles. 1996. Ranking political science programs: A view from the lower half. PS: Political Science and Politics 29(2):149-154. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kopp, R. J., W. W. Pommerehne, and N. Schwarz, ed. 1997. Determining the value of non-marketed goods. Boston: Kluwer. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lowry, R. C., and B. D. Silver. 1996. A rising tide lifts all boats: Political Science Department reputation and the reputation of the university. PS: Political Science and Politics 29(2): 161-167. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | March, J. G. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587-608. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mark, M. M. 1990. From program theory to tests of program theory. In Program theory in program evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, ed. L. Bickman, 47:37-51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mohr, L. B. 1995. Impact analysis for program evaluation. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mohr, L. B. 1996. The causes of human behavior: Implications for theory and method in the social sciences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Princeton Review. 1992. Student access guide to best colleges. New York: Villard Books. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rosenthal, D. H., and R. H. Nelson. 1992. Why existence value should not be used in cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11: 116-122. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scriven, M. 1994. The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice 15: 367-382. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scriven, M.. 1995. The logic of evaluation and evaluation practice. In Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps: New directions for evaluation, ed. D. M. Fournier, 68:49-70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Shadish, W. R., Jr., T. D. Cook, and L. C. Leviton. 1991. Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tribe, L. H. 1972. Policy science: Analysis or ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs 2:66-110. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.