1 / 24

Five Myths

Five Myths. About Funding Scientific Research (in Austria) …. and what Evaluation can do to make them more ‘Evidence Based’. Five Myths. „No Money for the Humanities and Social Sciences in Austria!“ „There is a funding gap between basic research and applied research!“

huyen
Télécharger la présentation

Five Myths

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. Five Myths About Funding Scientific Research (in Austria) ….and what Evaluation can do to make them more ‘Evidence Based’.

  2. Five Myths • „No Money for the Humanities and Social Sciences in Austria!“ • „There is a funding gap between basic research and applied research!“ • „Engeneering is treated unfair!“ • Networks, Fretworks • Impacts – now!

  3. Myth 1:„No money in the humanities / social sciences“

  4. Humanites get a raw deal…(Der Standard, 31. Mai 2005) • Social Sciences and Humanities are „starved out“ financially (Austrian Green Party, 13. Mai 2005) • …marginalisation of the Humanities…“.(M. Nießen, DFG)

  5. Mapping the Social Sciences & Humanities in Austria… • No Evaluation / No Benchmarking Exercise in the field • Lack of data • Contract research of the ministries? • No vivid programme scene • … but looking at further empirical evidence…

  6. number of R&D units R&D personnel R&D expenditures in 1000 EUR headcount FTE Natural sciences 197 6.469 4.865,2 387.193 Technical sciences 173 3.502 2.690,6 173.493 Medicine (incl. clinics) 144 7.284 6.025,6 333.516 Agriculture, Forestry & Veterinary Medicine 44 1.060 847,5 70.089 Social Sciences & Humanities 411 6.757 4.993,8 301.813 >> Social Sciences 208 3.775 2.718,4 165.755 >> Humanities 203 2.982 2.275,4 136.058 R&D in the higher education sector, 2002 Source: FTB 2005

  7. Contract Research, 2003 Source: FTB 2005

  8. FWF-project fundingAcceptance Rates, 1998-2003 • Highest Acceptance Rate • Natural Sciences and Humanities: 58% • Lowest Acceptance Rate • Agriculture and Social Sciences: 35% • Funding Rates • Quite homogeneous • 70 % Human Medicine • 80% Humanities Source: Streicher 2004

  9. A „Benchmarking Exercise“ • Benchmark Project • Natural Sciences, male co-ordinator • Age 40-50, Size 150 – 250 k€ • Approval Rate: 52,4% Variable % Difference in approval rate Technical Sciences - 8,5 Human Medicine -15,1 Agriculture, Forestry, VetMed -18,1 Social Sciences -19,2 Humanities + 4,5 (A cautionary remark: It would be wrong to interpret the co-efficents causally) Source: FWF Evaluation, Streicher, Schibany 2004

  10. A „Benchmarking Exercise“ • Yes, projects of a different scientific flavour face significantly different chances • Against a benchmark project, Social Sciences are rejected far more frequently • Humanities are (slightly but significantly) more successful Source: Streicher 2004

  11. Take into account… • Classification • Structural Issues • Age? • Fragmentation of Research Units? • Perspectives for younger researchers? • Researchers = working poor? • Quality • Kind of Indicators • ……

  12. Heterogeneous average working loads (in % of total working hours) Source: FTB 2005

  13. Conclusions • There is never enough money for doing research • No evidence, that Humanities / Social Sciencies are treated unfair • „Not enough money for the humanities / social Sciencies?“ • This is an urban legend

  14. Challanges for the future: • Evaluators • Evaluators should be • Sceptical, • suspicious of everybody • Triangulation is necessary! • Quantitative Methods are valuable sources of information • Stakeholders • Ask the big questions (from time to time), too. • Give the evaluators the degrees of freedom to answer these questions.

  15. Mythos 2:Funding Gaps between basic and applied sciences

  16. „Funding Gap“ Wissenschaft Science Wirtschaft Economy in A in A in A in A Basic Sciences Applied Sciences Dream Nightmare Reality

  17. Overall [FFF] tends to take too little risk. FFF funding practice is risk-averse. [The linear model] is a misleading oversimplification that encourages us to make poor policy decisions. Risk Aversity & FFF Source: FFF Evaluation, Arnold 2004 Source: FFF Evaluation, Jörg 2004 Source: FFF Evaluation, Arnold 2004

  18. FWF Projects: Commercial Output & Usability 41%: results are relevant for industry 30%: important lab results 20%: working prototypes exist 13% research results are suitable for commercialization straight away Source: FWF Evaluation, Streicher, Schibany 2004

  19. 7.3 (2003) CDG K-Ind ? K-Ind / Knet 18.9 Kplus ~ 70 Millionen € 101.51 127.15 5.9 Informationstechnologien: FIT-IT 10.8 Nanotechnologie: Nano-Initiative 3.5 Luftfahrt: TAKE OFF 11.6 Weltraum: ASAP & ARTIST 8 Verkehrstechnologien: ISB & A3 5.11 (2004- Translational FWF) BRIDGE: Translational Research & Brückenschlagprogramm Basic Sciences Applied Sciences

  20. Conclusions • There is no funding gap (anymore) • „Funding gap: No guiding principle for policymakers (anymore) • Funding Gap: Urban Legend II Source: mid term Evaluation FIT-IT, 2005

  21. Challenges for the Future I • In a NIS, there is the need for Evaluation of Systems (from time to time) • In a NIS, there is the need for Evaluation of Portfolios (from time to time)

  22. Challenges for the future II • Room for „curiosity driven Evaluation“ • Methodological Development • Evaluation is no pure science, but • It is no consulting business, too. • Of cause, Evaluation must have a sound scientific basis • Ensure degrees of freedom • Budget! • TORs • Fight Evaluation Fatigue • Realistic expectations • sufficent time spans

  23. Next Steps Paper, part of the conference…. „New Frontiers in Evaluation“ www.fteval.at/conference06 24./ 25. April 2006 Vienna, Austria

  24. Brigitte Tempelmaier, WWTF Team Michael Dinges, Joanneum Research Michaela Glanz, WWTF

More Related