1 / 17

Comprehensive evaluation

Comprehensive evaluation. Balance between Research Quality and Relevance (The Dutch Models) Jack Spaapen Coimbra Group – HSIS Dublin 19 September 2008. Polynesian Visual Art. Research impact Framework AHRC. interactions between research and society non-linear approach

niveditha
Télécharger la présentation

Comprehensive evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comprehensive evaluation Balance between Research Quality and Relevance (The Dutch Models) Jack Spaapen Coimbra Group – HSIS Dublin 19 September 2008

  2. Polynesian Visual Art

  3. Research impact Framework AHRC • interactions between research and society • non-linear approach • metrics alone not enough • metrics, and impact assessment, and quality assessment [<-> knowledge exchange]

  4. Problems evaluating Humanities / Social sciences / MIT • Bibliometrics not adequate when it comes to evaluating research quality  bad scores in evaluation procedures • Current indicators for societal relevance (patents, contracts) not so useful for humanities, and other fields • Lack of indicators for important communications to broader audiences, but new metrics for socio-cultural studies (NL) • General direction seems to be : traditional metrics only, (Australia, RQF  ERA, RAE in the UK, but… • Netherlands, other countries, are looking for more comprehensive methods

  5. Evaluating research quality under pressure • Peer review : trouble with new developments, MIT research, socio-economic relevance, referee fatigue • Bibliometrics : main focus in ISI journals • Lack of indicators for important communications to broader audiences • General direction still seems to be : traditional metrics only, (Australia, RQF  ERA, RAE in the UK, but… • Netherlands, other countries, are looking for more comprehensive methods

  6. struggle for comprehensive evaluation systems • Dimension 1 : metrics dominated by research practices of natural and biomedical sciences; inadequate for many fields • Dimension 2 : growing necessity to be relevant for economy and society • Dimension 3 : attuning scientific quality and societal relevance in evaluation • Dimension 4 : policy makers want simple metrics for reallocation purposes

  7. Many solutions are tried…. • UK Research Councils, AHRC, ESRC, also debate about RAE • Australia (RQF) • France, INRA • Norway, research councils • Denmark, radar graph…. • Canada : HSSFC focus on impacts and performance) • HERA

  8. Development of new evaluation systems • growing tension between policy makers / government and research community about how to account for research (criteria, indicators, metrics, but also too many evaluations, consequences) • growing tension between so-called scientific quality and societal relevance

  9. 2 debates • Current National Evaluation System SEP 2003 – 2009 • ERiC, Evaluating Research in Context

  10. SEP (2003 -2009) • Self evaluation report by research unit review of past performance and forward looks (SWOT) • Focus in site visit report on 4 criteria: • quality (output, position internationally) • relevance (to policy, industry and society) • research management • accountability • Evaluation both retrospective and prospective the accent is on the latter • External site visits every 6 years every three years mid term evaluation

  11. Humanities, social sciences, many others, are critical • Criteria and indicators not geared to humanities, social sciences, technical disciplines • No instruments to evaluate social relevance • 2005 Academy councils (Humanities and Social Sciences) issued a report : Judging research on its merits • 2006 Advisory Council for S&T policy : Alfa stralen • 2007 Meta Evaluation Committee : Trust but verify

  12. ERiC-project  relevance Joint effort of the Academy, Research Council, university association, and others Support institutions with the evaluation of societal quality / impact of research Develop criteria and indicators, a methodology, for assessment Suggest how to integrate these methods in new SEP (2009 – 2015)

  13. 4 common steps identified • Mission of research group or institute is starting point of evaluation • Identify productive interactions with social context : industry, policy, society at large • Data gathering : focus on research group’s performance in the various social domains, including stakeholder analysis : comprehensive profile of research group • Feed back and forward look

  14. ERiC evaluation principles • Comprehensive evaluation, focus on both scientific quality and relevance • Contextual : identify mission, involve stakeholders in indicator / benchmarking • Combine quantitative and qualitative data • Forward looking, focus on improving, learning, coaching in stead of judging

  15. example REPP – table graph

  16. example of evaluation of societal quality – radar graph [concise format]

  17. example of evaluation of societal quality – radar graph [extended format]

More Related