The progress of science and technology shows that good research does get funded—but it doesn’t show that peer review is the best way to select it, writes Steven Wooding.
Apr 25, 2013 | Research Europe
Steven Wooding is a senior research leader with RAND Europe and also the unit's research quality assurance manager. He currently works principally in the science of science including work in research evaluation, science policy and improving funding decisions in research. He is also interested in the effects of genetic technologies on health and public engagement with science.
Wooding has particular expertise is in developing and applying measurement frameworks and evaluation tools that capture the diverse range of benefits produced by research. This includes work examining research in biomedicine, social science and the arts and humanities.
Wooding has worked for government and charity sector clients in the UK, Ireland, Canada, USA and Australia and led a number of international studies on evaluating the long term – 10-25 year – impacts of research.
He has methodological interests in visualising concepts and data alongside the quantification of qualitative information.
Wooding received his M.A. in natural sciences and his Ph.D. in cell biology from the University of Cambridge.