Search results

This article reviews the principal methods economists and benefitlcost analysts use in evaluating research. These methods usually involve computing impacts using market information, mone tizing the impacts, and then comparing the value of the impacts with the cost of research. Two principal measures are common in the literature: surplus measures (consumers' surplus, producers'surplus, and combinations thereof) and productivity measures (average or marginal contributions of research and development [R&D] at firm, industry, national, or international levels). Given known time streams of benefits and costs, internal rates of return to R&D investments are then computed The article notes both the standard technical difficulties with these approaches and the political and organizational difficulties in using them.

This article examines competing strategies for supporting and utilizing applied social science and the policy sciences in public decisions and program operations. It argues that tension and conflict are the normal, expected state of affairs between decision makers and the social science and policy science communities. This is so because of very different strategic perspectives governing the scientific standing, decision utility, and political "morality"of applied social research and policy research. The article suggests conflict can be dampened, but never completely eliminated, by two things: (1) sequential research designs that simultaneously produce both partial scientific truths and information useful to decision makers, and (2) more attention to overall quality control and utilization possibilities. However, such improvements require changes in the incentive and value systems of social scientists, policy scientists, and decision makers. The engineering of change m these three communities is itself a formidable unsolved problem.