Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator

Aagaard, Kaare; Bloch, Carter; Schneider, Jesper W.

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv003

Cited by 102 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of what is known about its effects comes from a relatively thorough evaluation that was initiated in 2012 by the Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions (representing the funded organizations) in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Research (the funding organization). An independent Danish team of researchers studied its design, organization, effects and legitimacy (Aagaard et al, 2014). As well as advising improvement and further development, the exercise provided the basis for four indepth studies of internationally relevant questions (Aagaard, 2015;Aagaard et al, 2015;Schneider et al, 2015;Bloch and Schneider, 2016).…”

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An independent Danish team of researchers studied its design, organization, effects and legitimacy (Aagaard et al, 2014). As well as advising improvement and further development, the exercise provided the basis for four indepth studies of internationally relevant questions (Aagaard, 2015;Aagaard et al, 2015;Schneider et al, 2015;Bloch and Schneider, 2016). Since 2014, the funded and funding organizations have collaborated on following up the evaluation to improve the model and its practices.…”

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One example is that the possible disincentive to collaboration (Bloch and Schneider, 2016) and the imbalance in the representation of research fields have been solved by a redesign of the indicator. The fact that the indicator is also used locally, in some contexts for purposes where it is not appropriate and can do harm (Aagaard, 2015), has been accepted and followed up, not only using the advice of establishing inter-institutional learning arenas for proper managerial use of the indicator (Aagaard et al, 2014), but also by agreeing on national recommendations for good conduct on the local level.…”

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

Sivertsen

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by The Metric Tide report (2015) on the role of metrics in research assessment and management, and Lord Nicholas Stern's report Building on Success and Learning from Experience (2016), which deals with criticisms of REF2014 and gives advice for a redesign of REF2021, this article discusses the possible implications for other countries. It also contributes to the discussion of the future of the REF by taking an international perspective. The article offers a framework for understanding differences in the motivations and designs of performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) across countries. It also shows that a basis for mutual learning among countries is more needed than a formulation of best practice, thereby both contributing to and correcting the international outlook in The Metric Tide report and its supplementary Literature Review.

show abstract

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indicator-based Funding: the Norwegian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

Sivertsen

2017

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The inclusion of the SSH follows different degrees, from implementation of a performance-based funding model under the lead of an SSH scholar and thus accounting for SSH research practices from the beginning (some even say that the system gives the SSH an advantage, see Aagaard et al, 2015) in Norway (Sivertsen, 2016) to a purely bottom-up approach based on research on SSH research practices and their impact on evaluation methods in Switzerland (Loprieno et al, 2016).…”

Section: Ssh Research Practices and Criteria For Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While initially the reaction was negative because it turns scholarly output into measures and the system is not designed to cover all scholarly activity but only academic publications, the evaluation of the system showed that there was no major discontent about the system among the scholars (Aagaard et al, 2015). This might be well because of the fact that the indicator showed a high productivity of the SSH disciplines.…”

Section: Ssh Research Practices and Criteria For Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators

Hammarfelt

Haddow

2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While bibliometric indicators, such as the journal impact factor, have long played an important role in many STEM disciplines it has been repeatedly shown that established bibliometric methods have limited use in the humanities. Using a questionnaire on metrics use and publication practices in Australia and Sweden, we tested the assumption that indicators play a minor role among humanities scholars. Our findings show that our respondents use indicators to a considerable degree, with a range of indicators and rankings being employed. The scholars use metrics as part of institutional policy, in CVs and applications, as well as for general promotion of their work. Notable in our results is that a much larger share of researchers (62%) in Australia used metrics compared to Sweden (14%). Scholar's attitudes regarding bibliometrics are mixed; many are critical of these measures, while at the same time feeling pressured to use them. One main tension described by our respondents is between intradisciplinary criteria of quality and formalized indicators, and negotiating these “orders of worth” is a challenging balancing act, especially for younger researchers.

show abstract

Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator

Cited by 102 publications

References 9 publications

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

Unique, but still best practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an international perspective

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About