Show simple item record

The Impact Profile Approach to Policy Merit

dc.contributor.authorMohr, Lawrenceen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T19:45:59Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T19:45:59Z
dc.date.issued1999en_US
dc.identifier.citationMohr, 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.issn0193-841Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67741
dc.description.abstractIn 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.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent170064 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.titleThe Impact Profile Approach to Policy Meriten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67741/2/10.1177_0193841X9902300205.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0193841X9902300205en_US
dc.identifier.sourceEvaluation Reviewen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Council on Education. 1983. American Universities and Colleges. Vol. 12. Washington, DC: Author.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmerican Council on Education. 1992. American Universities and Colleges. Vol. 14. Washington, DC: Authoren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAstin, A. W. 1993. What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAstin, 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.citedreferenceBlackorby, C. 1990. Economic policy in a second-best environment. Canadian Journal of Economics 23(4): 748-771.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClotfelter, C. T. 1996. Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCronbach, L. J. 1982. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEdwards, W., and J. R. Newman. 1982. Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeller, 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.citedreferenceGeiger, R., and I. Feller. 1995. The dispersion of academic research in the 1980s. Journal of Higher Education 66:336-360.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberger, 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.citedreferenceGrossman, 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.citedreferenceJackman, 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.citedreferenceJones, 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.citedreferenceKatz, 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.citedreferenceKopp, R. J., W. W. Pommerehne, and N. Schwarz, ed. 1997. Determining the value of non-marketed goods. Boston: Kluwer.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLowry, 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.citedreferenceMarch, J. G. 1978. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587-608.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMark, 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.citedreferenceMohr, L. B. 1995. Impact analysis for program evaluation. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMohr, 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.citedreferencePrinceton Review. 1992. Student access guide to best colleges. New York: Villard Books.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosenthal, 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.citedreferenceScriven, M. 1994. The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice 15: 367-382.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScriven, 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.citedreferenceShadish, 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.citedreferenceTribe, L. H. 1972. Policy science: Analysis or ideology? Philosophy and Public Affairs 2:66-110.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

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.