Evaluations of CGIAR Science Groups: Synthesis on Quality of Science

dc.contributor.authorJill Lennéen_US
dc.contributor.authorSG Evaluation Teamsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-31T11:23:54Zen_US
dc.date.available2025-01-31T11:23:54Zen_US
dc.description.abstractEvaluating the quality of science, research, and innovation is an integral part of achieving and measuring the process and progress of the SDGs (EvalSDGs Insight #18). The CGIAR’s Guidelines on Evaluating QoS (also Spanish) elevated QoS as a cross-cutting criterion within the six OECD/DAC criteria for framing evaluative judgments and as a stand-alone evaluation criterion with four dimensions (design, inputs, processes, and outputs). The QOS elements of credibility and legitimacy are embedded in the QoS criterion. The value and utility of the criterion were demonstrated through a summary of the Evaluative Evidence from the CGIAR Portfolio on Quality of Science (2020-2023 reviews and evaluations of CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) and Platforms. The learning informed the design of the Science Group Evaluations (Terms of Reference) and data collection methods to answer two overarching questions: ● To what extent do the SGs' management processes ensure the QoS, including credibility, legitimacy, relevance to next-stage users, and potential effectiveness, of the research and operations? ● In what ways are the research outputs by the SGs of high quality and influential? In 2024, evidence on the QoS inquiry from the evaluations of the Science Groups (SGs): Genetic Innovation (GI), Resilient Agri-food Systems (RAFS) and System Transformation (ST) was synthesized across the four QoS dimensions and complemented by 11 case studies and in-depth analyses an online survey, key informant interviews, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) to assess influence. Findings were analyzed against the OECD/DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness despite initial challenges in applying QoS guidelines. Intended for evaluators, policymakers, and researchers involved in CGIAR and related initiatives, the CGIAR Science Group Evaluations: Brief on Quality of Science asses QoS through the four key dimensions earlier mentioned. The report includes valuable lessons from each Science Group and outlines recommended actions for improving QoS within the 2025–2030 CGIAR Portfolio, emphasizing stronger alignment, stakeholder engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. To dive deeper into the findings and recommendations: • Download the full report: Access detailed insights, lessons learned, and actionable steps to drive high-quality research and innovation aligned with the SDGs. • Visit the Science Group evaluations portal: Explore comprehensive evaluations and reports on Quality of Science. • Explore the QoS Resource Hub: Access tools, guidelines, and resources to support research excellence and impactful innovation.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/172646en_US
dc.titleEvaluations of CGIAR Science Groups: Synthesis on Quality of Scienceen_US
dcterms.abstractEvaluating the quality of science, research, and innovation is an integral part of achieving and measuring the process and progress of the SDGs (EvalSDGs Insight #18). The CGIAR’s Guidelines on Evaluating QoS (also Spanish) elevated QoS as a cross-cutting criterion within the six OECD/DAC criteria for framing evaluative judgments and as a stand-alone evaluation criterion with four dimensions (design, inputs, processes, and outputs). The QOS elements of credibility and legitimacy are embedded in the QoS criterion. The value and utility of the criterion were demonstrated through a summary of the Evaluative Evidence from the CGIAR Portfolio on Quality of Science (2020-2023 reviews and evaluations of CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) and Platforms. The learning informed the design of the Science Group Evaluations (Terms of Reference) and data collection methods to answer two overarching questions: ● To what extent do the SGs' management processes ensure the QoS, including credibility, legitimacy, relevance to next-stage users, and potential effectiveness, of the research and operations? ● In what ways are the research outputs by the SGs of high quality and influential? In 2024, evidence on the QoS inquiry from the evaluations of the Science Groups (SGs): Genetic Innovation (GI), Resilient Agri-food Systems (RAFS) and System Transformation (ST) was synthesized across the four QoS dimensions and complemented by 11 case studies and in-depth analyses an online survey, key informant interviews, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) to assess influence. Findings were analyzed against the OECD/DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness despite initial challenges in applying QoS guidelines. Intended for evaluators, policymakers, and researchers involved in CGIAR and related initiatives, the CGIAR Science Group Evaluations: Brief on Quality of Science asses QoS through the four key dimensions earlier mentioned. The report includes valuable lessons from each Science Group and outlines recommended actions for improving QoS within the 2025–2030 CGIAR Portfolio, emphasizing stronger alignment, stakeholder engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. To dive deeper into the findings and recommendations: • Download the full report: Access detailed insights, lessons learned, and actionable steps to drive high-quality research and innovation aligned with the SDGs. • Visit the Science Group evaluations portal: Explore comprehensive evaluations and reports on Quality of Science. • Explore the QoS Resource Hub: Access tools, guidelines, and resources to support research excellence and impactful innovation.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationCGIAR Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES). (2024). Evaluations of Science Groups: Synthesis on Quality of Science. Rome: IAES Evaluation Function.en_US
dcterms.issued2025-01en_US
dcterms.licenseOtheren_US
dcterms.typeReporten_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Evaluations-of-CGIAR-Science-Groups.pdf
Size:
1.91 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: