Kemal Hanjalic

1
DRUGI KONGRES BH NAUCNIKA IZ ZEMLJE I
SVIJETA Sarajevo 28-31 august 2008
Towards Research and Education Excellence
Values and Evaluations
Kemal Hanjalic Marie Curie Chair La Sapienza
University of Rome, Italy Emeritus Professor
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
and University of Sarajevo, BH
2
Contents
Science, education and technological development

Challenges for developing countries
Aiming at the top Some
experience from a European technological
university
Research quality assessment Criteria and practice
Individual evaluation of scientists Criteria and
relativization
Some new trends Joining the forces
Popularisation and public image of science
3
Some folklore
Industrial and economic development and
prosperity of a nation
Achievements in science and investment in
research
?
Science and research
A major driving force for progress
?
The Linear model Research ? Development ?
Production ? Marketing
The widening gap in Economics and Influence
between the nations of the South and North is
basically the Science Gap (Abdus Salam)
Only few nations in the world, which are leading
in science, are drawing enormous capital gain
through selling high-tech goods, BUT..,
4
Questions

• Does it really mean that catching up with the
  top science is the only
• way to reduce the development gap? (Japan,
  South Korea, Taiwan,..?)

• Can developing countries afford to match the
  investment into research
• of leading countries? What is the minimum
  threshold?

• How about the manpower?

• Would the industry of those countries be able
  to absorb all scientific
• and innovative achievements, and convert them
  into commercial
• products competitive at the world market?

• CRUCIAL ISSUE the choice of priorities
  appropriate science and
• technology policy to utilize comparative
  advantages

5
Correlation between the science and economy
effectiveness
(Science impact of nations, David King, Nature
430, 2004)
6
Recommendation by the InterAcademy Council, IAC,
in response to the appeal of Kofi Annan
7
Practice (in some countries)

• Smaller, less developed countries, tend to
  imitate the leading
• industrial nations

• Engineers tend to advocate technologically most
  advanced options

• Economists often go along with these ambitions
  (lack of accountability!)

But,

• Technological progress in the economic sense
  does not always
• coincide with the technological progress in
  the technical sense!

• Even smaller communities can concentrate
  manpower and resources
• and achieve technological breakthroughs and
  independence from import
• but this would hold the developments in other
  industrial sectors!

8
TK vs SK (Technological vs Scientific Knowledge)
There is a category of information which can be
called Technological Knowledge, (TK) more
important (than SK) for the success in
commercial market through the entire period of
industrial era. (S. Kline)

• Science usually does not finish the task of
  innovation

• Manufacturing skill and operative knowledge
  lead countries like Japan to
• become a leading economic power, despite a
  shortage of Nobel laureates.

This does not mean that Science should be left
only to the rich! But,

• Selection of priorities and a balanced
  commitment on both, own basic
• research and acquisition of knowledge from
  any source and with all
• means at our disposal (Emperor, Japan, 1870)

• Seeking, acquiring and transferring knowledge
  is a complex technology
• on its own,
• the Knowledge Technology ? top priority of
  the Educational System!

9
Some dilemmas (in not-so-developed countries)

• How to use best the modest scientific
  potential, established
• internationally, but isolated in their home
  environment)

• How to motivate those pin heads on a pin
  cushion to employ
• their knowledge and skill to the benefits
  and goals of the society?

• The responsibility and duty of the
  establishment
• to recognize that such a potential exists at
  home,
• to secure minimum research infrastructure
• to stimulate and direct it to the carefully
  selected priority goals

• Equally important is that Industry
• recognizes and accepts such a potential as an
  opportunity for
• its innovative undertaking,
• delegates a portion of its research and
  development to this
• community (usually concentrated at
  universities)

10
Technological Development and Higher Education

• Applied and development research ?
• sublimation of knowledge and
  innovation and transformation
• into a new value, product and
  quality, but

• Basic research generates new knowledge and new
  skills

• Universities sue generis generators and
  disseminators of
• new knowledge

• Only the scientists who contribute steadily to
  the world science
• treasure are capable of drawing the top
  knowledge

• Major weaknesses in the technological development
  loop
• Science and Education
  systems
• (especially in
  developing countries)

11
Technological Development Loop
Cannot function if at any level the critical
threshold is not achieved!
12
Aiming at the Top Some experience from TU Delft

• Ambition to belong to the world top league ?
  motivation for recent
• major transformations and reforms in
  technological universities

• Knowledge-based economy ? Search for new
  identity, concept, role
• 
  and niche in the society

• Paradoxically
• a continuous decline in student enrolment ?
  loss of interest in science

• Re-establishing respect and social status of the
  profession
• ? reverse the negative trend in student
  enrolment

13
TU Delft ID

• One of (only 3) technical universities in Nl (
  Eindhoven and Twente)
• (Nl total 16
  universities, 16.5 million inhabitants)
• 1842 founded as Royal Academy for Education of
  Civil Engineers
• 1863 ? Polytechnische Hooghschool (Polytechnic
  High School)
• 1905 ? Technische Hoogschool (Technical High
  School)
• 1986 ? Technische Universitait (University of
  Technology)

• Students 13500 (yearly enrolment about 2400),
  700 PhDs
• Staff 4600 (820 academics of which 200 full
  professors)
• Yearly output
• 1500 graduate engineers (MSc), 180 PhDs, 40
  Design diplomas
• 6000 scientific publications (2006)
• 2300 professional publications
• 40-60 patents

• Annual budget about 400 M (1/3 external)

• World ranking 17th among techn. universities
  (2005 The Times HES)
• Aim to belong to the top 5 in the world!

14
TU Delft Major transformation from 1999
.. to adjust to global trends and to prepare for
the social and academic demands of the 21st
century in the new, internationally oriented
world of education and research
research-driven university

• 13 faculties ? re-clustered into 7
• new educational strategy, menus and
  curricula
• research-inspired teaching, thinking above
  knowing , learn to learn,
• new vocabulary and nomenclature
  (sound-bait, name-game
• e.g. Departments of Multi-scale
  Physics, Mediamatica, Haptics,
• adopting Bologna Bachelor-Master (Ba-Ma)
  system (2002)
• (all MSc courses and some BSc (e.g.
  Aero-space) in English
• systematic popularization of the university
  in media
• campaigns in high-schools
• students macro and mega -projects at the
  university level

• Some effects student enrolment increased in
  2003 by 14!

15
Student (Mega) Projects
Nuna II, the solar powered car TUD Two
successive winners of Solar Challenge (3010 km
race across Australia)
Wind Turbine in the Faculty Building Aero-space
Engineering
16
TU Delft in Public Media 1481 times in one year
17
New University Structure and Organization
Key changes and emphasis

• multi-disciplinary and
• inter-faculty long-term
• projects and activities

• concentration of manpower
• and resources, synergy

18
Delft Research Centres ? Technology Programmes

• Computational science and technology
• Earth observation, utilization, environment and
  engineering
• Energy sources, sustainability, conversion and
  use
• Information and communication technology
• Life science and technology
• Management and design of multi-functional
  infrastructures
• Material science
• Mechatronics and micro-systems
• Mobility of persons and transportation of goods
• Nanotechnology
• Sustainable industrial processes
• Sustainable environment in urban areas
• Water environment, cycles, infrastructure and
  management

If demands in the past have brought us this
far, where will demands in the future take us?
Curiosity is our drive, knowledge is our core
business and society is our partner!
19
TUD Research Centres some projects
Self-healing materials
CO2 Washing is safer
20
Quality Assessment

• Systematic, since 1993, under the aegis of
  VSNU (Association of
• Universities in Nl) and KNAW (Royal Dutch
  Academy of Arts and
• Sciences)

• Guiding principles stipulated by
• 1994 Protocol for the Quality Assessment of
  Research
• (reviewed and amended in 1998)
• The Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public
  Research
• Organizations 2003-2009 (novelty public
  accountability!)

• Primary objectives
• Improvement of the research quality ..by
  international standards
• Improvement of research management and
  leadership
• accountability to higher management, funding
  agencies,
• government and society at large

• Combined retrospective and prospective analysis

21
Quality Assessment, cont.
The unit of evaluation

• Research program a group of researchers
  with an articulated shared
• mission, operating under the same management
  (chair, section)

The basis for evaluation

• Programme description, research portfolio,
  publications (5 key publ.,
• full list of articles, books, design and
  software, patents, invited lectures,
• contracts with industry, international
  network, other products)

• Self-assessment with SWOT analysis
• (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities
  Threats)

• Bibliographic- bibliometric (citation) analysis
  
• (provided by the Centre for Science and
  Technology Studies of the
• Leiden University)

• Analysis of age distribution per programme

• Any other relevant information

22
(No Transcript)
23
Quality Assessment Criteria
Quality a measure of excellence and excitement,
the eminence of a group's research activities,
its abilities to perform at the highest level and
its achievements in the international scientific
community. Productivity the total (reviewed)
output of the group Relevance scientific,
technical and socio-economic impact of the work
(importance to developments or questions in
society at large). Vitality and feasibility
internal and external dynamics of the group, its
flexibility, ability to close research lines that
have no future, to initiate new venture projects

24
Quality Assessment Rating (five-point scale)
Excellent (5) work at the forefront
internationally, most likely to have an
important and substantial impact in the field
Institute considered as an international leader.
Very good (4) work internationally
competitive, expected to make a significant
contribution nationally at the forefront
Institute is an international player, national
leader Good (3) work competitive at the
national level, will probably make a valuable
contribution in the international field
Institute considered as internationally visible
and a national player Satisfactory (2) work
is solid but not exciting will add to
understanding and is in principle worthy of
support Institute is nationally visible
Unsatisfactory (1) work that is neither solid
nor exciting, flawed in the scientific/technical
approach, repetition of other work, not worthy of
support
25
Quality Assessment Some results and consequences
1996 Assessment of Research Quality in Physics in
Nl

• 101 groups evaluated, typical size 20-40
  people (1-3 full profs.,
• 3-5 assoc/assistant profs, 3-5 technical
  staff rest PhDs and postdocs)

• Peer Committee findings More than 10
  excellent, over 50 above
• (still acceptable) satisfactory level

• The TU Delft Executive Board decided in 1996 to
  close the last-ranked
• section (of total 16), as a warning and
  demonstration of importance
• to the peer evaluation/ enhance dynamics in
  university restructuring!

2002 Assessment of Research Quality TU Delft
Leiden Univ.

• We should not measure ourselves with the
  domestic yardstick and
• compete among ourselves, but to enter the
  international scene

• Results in general congruent with those from
  1996 (some exceptions)

26
Evaluation of individual scientists multiple
criteria
1. Bibliometric Indicators, (relative citation
impact)

• Different publication and citation cultures in
  different areas of science,
• The role of the cited author in the team
  initiator/ leader and just a member

2. Keynote and plenary lectures at international
events
Recongition of forefront, actual, comprehensive,
original research
3. Citations and elaboration in books,
textbooks, monographs,..
Recognition of permanent archival value of
research results, broader popularity
4. Popular recognition in news media
ScienceNews, ScienceDaily, ScienceGuide,
EurekaAlert, Innovation Report,..
5. International Awards, Memberships and
Fellowships in learned and professional
organizations and associations
6. Editorship of international journals,
initiation and organization of
international conferences and other scientific
events..
7. .
27
Bibliometric Indicators and Citation Statistics

• Citation index a treasure of quantitaive
  information most scientists
• are keenly interested in how often their work
  is cited!

• Can be used to identify influential research,
  new trends, connections
• across fields, .., but

• Absolute citation number can be misleading
  (different cultures, number
• of authors, negative/dubious citations,..)

• More objective and relevant are different
  relative citation impact and
• other criteria such as

• h factor the number of papers cited at least
  as many times as
• that number

• Cumulative advantage how probable is that a
  publication continues
• to be cited at a monotonically increasing rate

• Others

28
220 authors!
29
Bibliometric Indicators
Basic Indicators
Crown Indicators
Auxiliary Indicators
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Some New Trends Joining the Forces

• Severe competition on the global scale
• ? joint missions,
  alliance, integration, amalgamation,..

• Long-term cooperative programmes, projects,
  exchange of students
• and personnel,.. with universities worldwide

• Earlier initiative IDEA League
• Imperial College, Delft University, ETH
  Zurich, Aachen University

• More recent initiative Dutch Institute of
  Technology - 3TU
• (Delft, Eindhoven and Twente Universities of
  Technology)

• Still more recent European Institute of
  Technology - EIT
• (an initiative from the EU Research
  Commissioner, Brussels)

37
Example of Joint Research Ventures
- National University of Singapore - Eindhoven
Univ. Technology (Nl) - MIT (USA)
38
Public Image of Science in Nl
Ranking, counting, comparing,..
39
Public Image of Science in Nl
Most cited scientist
40
(No Transcript)
41
National Science Quiz, 25 December, 22.00 hr.