Refine
Document Type
- Article (15)
- Public lecture (8)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Report (2)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- no (29)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (29)
Keywords
- Evaluation (1)
- Informationsfreiheit (1)
- Open Data (1)
Measuring societal impacts of research is a challenging task in research evaluation. In this article, we describe several of these challenges with regard to causal inference, time lag, side-effects, operationalization, comparability between disciplines, and availability of required data. We show how different approaches deal with these challenges in evaluation practice and focus on a particular approach named “practice impact” in more detail. This approach includes an improved documentation and is sought to have positive effects on innovation processes and synergies with research and research funding. Moreover, dialogue with different user groups is fostered and serves to make evaluation beyond scientific impact desired, feasible, and efficient.
Freedom of information acts (FOIA) aim to improve the public’s opportunities to access official information from public authorities and hence to increase the level of transparency. Thus, it is important to know whether and to what degree the effects intended by establishing FOIAs are achieved and how their implementation could be improved. Hence, this article presents the evaluation of the Hamburg Transparency Law (HmbTG)– Germany’s first FOIA that binds authorities to disclose government information proactively. The purpose of the paper is to provide a valuable example of how evaluating FOIA might produce useful information for policymakers and public authorities. The analysis results, based on a mixed set of methods (i.e. standardised surveys, statistical secondary data, qualitative expert interviews, and criteria-driven document analysis), lead to the conclusion that the HmbTG was very effective in providing the direct access. On the other hand, it was found that strategies for implementing the law varied considerably between authorities, yet proactive disclosure was overall implemented effectively. Moreover, this law shows some weaknesses to be improved in the future. Besides providing practitioners with valuable insights into how a transparency law may be implemented, the evaluation of the HmbTG also provides researchers with ideas how FOIA evaluation might be conducted comprehensively.
Purpose – Governments and energy operators are often confronted with opposition to the construction of new high-voltage transmission lines. Besides other factors, a potential determinant of public opposition and acceptance that has gained increasing attention is the fairness of the planning and approval procedure as perceived by the citizens. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a scale for measuring perceived procedural fairness (PPF).
Design/methodology/approach – The authors developed the ten-item “perceived procedural fairness scale (PPFS)” and assessed its quality by means of item response theory. By using a Rasch rating scale model, the authors tested whether the instrument met the requirements of this kind of measurement model. For conducting their research, the authors used data from two telephone surveys in Germany that were collected in areas that are affected by grid expansion.
Findings – The findings suggest that the scale can be considered a reliable and internal valid instrument for measuring citizens’ PPF.
Originality/value – At the moment, there is no psychometrically rigorously evaluated scale available for measuring PPF in the context of power grid expansion. Therefore, the study contributes to filling this gap and provides a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners concerned with further investigating citizens’ PPF and its relationships with other relevant constructs in the field.
Keywords - Policy, Procedural fairness, Procedural justice, Energy infrastructure, Power grid expansion, Item response theory, Rasch modelling