a research agenda for evaluation

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

A Research Agenda for Evaluation

Copyright & permissions

Recommend to librarian

Your Details

Privacy Policy

Librarian Details

Download leaflet

• Hardback Availability: In Stock List £99.00 Member £89.10

eBook options

Available for individuals to buy from these websites

Or recommend to your institution to acquire on Elgar online

• Buy as part of an eBook subject collection - flexible options available
• Downloading and printing allowed
• No limits on concurrent user access, ideal for course use

Join our mailing list

Politics and public policy, research methods, latest publications.

Sovereign Europe

Paolo Guerrieri, Pier Carlo Padoan

Member price

Handbook of Health System Resilience

Steve Thomas, Padraic Fleming

A Research Agenda for Gender and Health

Jasmine Gideon, Sarah Hawkes

Table of Contents

• [81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Toward an agenda for evaluation of qualitative research

Affiliation.

• 1 University of Bergen, Norway. [email protected]
• PMID: 19805812
• DOI: 10.1177/1049732309348501

Evaluation is essential for research quality and development, but the diversity of traditions that characterize qualitative research suggests that general checklists or shared criteria for evaluation are problematic. We propose an approach to research evaluation that encourages reflexive dialogue through use of an evaluation agenda. In proposing an evaluation agenda we shift attention from rule-based judgment to reflexive dialogue. Unlike criteria, an agenda may embrace pluralism, and does not request consensus on ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues, only consensus on what themes warrant discussion. We suggest an evaluation agenda-EPICURE-with two dimensions communicated through use of two acronyms.The first, EPIC, refers to the challenge of producing rich and substantive accounts based on engagement, processing, interpretation, and (self-)critique. The second-CURE-refers to the challenge of dealing with preconditions and consequences of research, with a focus on (social) critique, usefulness, relevance, and ethics. The seven items of the composite agenda EPICURE are presented and exemplified. Features and implications of the agenda approach to research evaluation are then discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• [Qualitative methods in medical research--preconditions, potentials and limitations]. Malterud K. Malterud K. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002 Oct 20;122(25):2468-72. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002. PMID: 12448119 Review. Norwegian.
• How to critique qualitative research articles. Forchuk C, Roberts J. Forchuk C, et al. Can J Nurs Res. 1993 Winter;25(4):47-55; quiz 56. Can J Nurs Res. 1993. PMID: 10603806 Review.
• The perpetual search for parsimony: enhancing the epistemological and practical utility of qualitative research findings. Cutcliffe JR, Harder HG. Cutcliffe JR, et al. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Oct;46(10):1401-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.05.005. Epub 2009 Jun 11. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009. PMID: 19523627 Review.
• Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Rolfe G. Rolfe G. J Adv Nurs. 2006 Feb;53(3):304-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03727.x. J Adv Nurs. 2006. PMID: 16441535 Review.
• [Mixed methods: promising strategies for the evaluation of nursing interventions]. Larue C, Loiselle CG, Bonin JP, Cohen R, Gélinas C, Dubois S, Lambert S. Larue C, et al. Rech Soins Infirm. 2009 Jun;(97):50-62. Rech Soins Infirm. 2009. PMID: 19642477 Review. French.
• Detecting child sexual abuse in child and adolescent psychiatry: a survey study of healthcare professionals' assessment practice. Halvorsen MS, Stige SH, Halvorsen JE, Binder PE, Måkestad E, Albaek AU, Andersen AC. Halvorsen MS, et al. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2024 Apr 18;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13033-024-00632-y. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2024. PMID: 38637858 Free PMC article.
• Steering the energy with music: hermeneutic phenomenological study of user perspectives of music and music therapy for co-occurring ADHD and substance use problems. Ghetti CM, Hjelmbrekke S, Morken K, Dahl T, Stige B. Ghetti CM, et al. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2024 Jan 23;19(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s13011-024-00594-x. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2024. PMID: 38263064 Free PMC article.
• "We Tried to Take Care of Her, but it Got Too Exhausting" : A Study of the Transition From Family Carer to Employer. Ness TM, Silan W. Ness TM, et al. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2023 Oct 16;10:23333936231202876. doi: 10.1177/23333936231202876. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2023. PMID: 37854877 Free PMC article.
• When Unstructured Big Text Corpus Meets Text Network Analysis: Social Reality Conceptualization and Visualization Graph of Big Interview Data of Heavy Drug Addicts of Skid Row. Feyissa IF, Zhang N. Feyissa IF, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Aug 31;11(17):2439. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11172439. Healthcare (Basel). 2023. PMID: 37685473 Free PMC article.
• Exploring the potential of a standardized test in physiotherapy: making emotion, embodiment, and therapeutic alliance count for women with chronic pelvic pain. Boge-Olsnes CM, Risør MB, Øberg GK. Boge-Olsnes CM, et al. Front Psychol. 2023 Aug 3;14:1166496. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1166496. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37599746 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Politics & Government

Sorry, there was a problem.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

A Research Agenda for Evaluation (Elgar Research Agendas)

Taking a critical look at evaluation as a social phenomenon, this Research Agenda will be a useful resource for scholars and students of evaluation, public administration and management, and public policy. It will also be beneficial in helping practitioners and researchers to understand the major emerging issues within the field of evaluation.

• ISBN-10 1839101075
• ISBN-13 978-1839101076
• Publisher Edward Elgar Publishing
• Publication date June 16, 2021
• Language English
• Dimensions 6 x 0.75 x 9.25 inches
• Print length 256 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Edward Elgar Publishing (June 16, 2021)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 256 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1839101075
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1839101076
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.14 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.75 x 9.25 inches

About the author

Peter dahler-larsen.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• About Amazon
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell products on Amazon
• Sell on Amazon Business
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Make Money with Us
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Amazon and COVID-19
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices

• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

This website may not work correctly because your browser is out of date. Please update your browser .

Developing a Research Agenda for Impact Evaluation in Development

• https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/idsb12115.pdf File type PDF File size 147.6 KB

This article, written by Patricia Rogers and Greet Peersman for the IDS Bulletin , looks at the requirements for developing a research agenda for impact evaluation. It examines the process involved and outlines four key areas where research is needed. It continues by reviewing a variety of research methods that can be used in an impact evaluation and provides a number of examples of research questions that can be used. 

"This article provides a starting point for the development of a formal and collaborative research agenda. It begins by defining why a research agenda is needed and what it would cover. It outlines four areas of impact evaluation where research is needed – enabling environment, practice, products and impacts. It reviews the different methods that can be used to research impact evaluation and argues for particular attention to detailed, theory-informed, mixed-method comparative case studies of the actual processes and impacts of impact evaluation. It explores some examples of research questions that would be valuable to focus on and how they might be addressed – not to provide a definitive review of each topic but to illustrate the scope and approach needed. Finally, it makes some suggestions about the process that is needed to create a research agenda that is not just a wish list or arena for fighting for resources by evaluators, but a productive collaboration among the various parties needed to bring the research agenda to life."

• Why do we need research on impact evaluation in development?
• What is a research agenda and how should it be developed?
• What needs to be researched?
• How impact evaluation should be researched
• Examples of important research questions about impact evaluation and how they might be answered

Rogers, P. & Peersman, G. (2014). "Developing a Research Agenda for Impact Evaluation in Development", IDS Bulletin,  Volume 45 Number 6, pps 85 - 99. Retrieved from:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1759-5436.12115/pdf

Related links

• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1759-5436.12115/pdf

Back to top

© 2022 BetterEvaluation. All right reserved.

A Research Agenda for Evaluation

• Download PDF
• Public Administration and Management
• Public Policy
• Research Methods in Politics and Public Policy

• [81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

This week: the arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: a dataset for evaluating llm-based evaluation functions for research question extraction task.

Abstract: The progress in text summarization techniques has been remarkable. However the task of accurately extracting and summarizing necessary information from highly specialized documents such as research papers has not been sufficiently investigated. We are focusing on the task of extracting research questions (RQ) from research papers and construct a new dataset consisting of machine learning papers, RQ extracted from these papers by GPT-4, and human evaluations of the extracted RQ from multiple perspectives. Using this dataset, we systematically compared recently proposed LLM-based evaluation functions for summarizations, and found that none of the functions showed sufficiently high correlations with human evaluations. We expect our dataset provides a foundation for further research on developing better evaluation functions tailored to the RQ extraction task, and contribute to enhance the performance of the task. The dataset is available at this https URL .

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Environment
• Science & Technology
• Business & Industry
• Health & Public Welfare
• Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
• Public Inspection
• Presidential Documents
• Document Search
• Advanced Document Search
• Public Inspection Search
• Reader Aids Home
• Office of the Federal Register Announcements
• Using FederalRegister.Gov
• Understanding the Federal Register
• Recent Site Updates
• Federal Register & CFR Statistics
• Videos & Tutorials
• Developer Resources
• Government Policy and OFR Procedures
• Congressional Review
• My Clipboard
• My Comments
• My Subscriptions
• Sign In / Sign Up
• Site Feedback
• Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Electronic Common Technical Document; Data Standards; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Supporting Electronic Common Technical Document Version 4.0

A Notice by the Food and Drug Administration on 09/16/2024

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

• Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agencies Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Agency/Docket Number Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1216 Document Citation 89 FR 75545 Document Number 2024-20897 Document Type Notice Pages 75545-75546 (2 pages) Publication Date 09/16/2024 Published Content - Document Details
• View printed version (PDF)
• Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Dates Text Support for eCTDv4.0 electronic submissions begins September 16, 2024. FDA will also continue to support eCTDv3.2.2 electronic submissions. Submit either electronic or written comments at any time. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

Electronic Submissions

Written/paper submissions, for further information contact:, supplementary information:.

This feature is not available for this document.

Additional information is not currently available for this document.

• Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-20897 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
• Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 09/13/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 28 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

• the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
• the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
• the agency docket number / agency internal file number
• the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Department of Health and Human Services

Food and drug administration.

• [Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1216]

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research are announcing support for Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Version 4.0 (v4.0)-based electronic submissions.

Support for eCTDv4.0 electronic submissions begins September 16, 2024. FDA will also continue to support eCTDv3.2.2 electronic submissions. Submit either electronic or written comments at any time.

You may submit comments as follows:

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov .
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instruction.”

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1216 for “Electronic Common Technical Document; Data Standards; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Supporting Electronic Common Technical Document Version 4.0.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500.

• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be ( print page 75546) made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov . Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469 , September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2015-09-18/​pdf/​2015-23389.pdf .

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500.

Jonathan Resnick, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, [email protected] ; or James Myers, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

According to the guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Certain Human Pharmaceutical Product Applications and Related Submissions Using the eCTD Specifications” (available at https://www.fda.gov/​regulatory-information/​search-fda-guidance-documents/​providing-regulatory-submissions-electronic-format-certain-human-pharmaceutical-product-applications ), submissions subject to section 745A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( 21 U.S.C. 379k-1(a) ) must be submitted in eCTD format using the version of eCTD currently supported by FDA unless such submission is exempt from the electronic submission requirements or if FDA has granted a waiver. The version of eCTD currently supported by FDA is specified in the FDA Data Standards Catalog (available at https://www.fda.gov/​regulatory-information/​search-fda-guidance-documents/​data-standards-catalog ). FDA plans to update the FDA Data Standards Catalog to add eCTDv4.0 upon publication of this notice. FDA will support both eCTDv3.2.2 and eCTDv4.0 submissions before eventually only supporting eCTDv4.0 submissions. FDA will provide advance notice of when the Agency will begin supporting electronic submission only in eCTDv4.0. Specifications for eCTDv3.2.2 and v4.0 are available on FDA's eCTD web page (available at: https://www.fda.gov/​drugs/​electronic-regulatory-submission-and-review/​electronic-common-technical-document-ectd ).

Dated: September 10, 2024.

Lauren K. Roth,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[ FR Doc. 2024-20897 Filed 9-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

• Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

• About This Site
• Legal Status
• Accessibility
• No Fear Act
• Continuity Information