Comprehensive evaluation

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 lt-gt 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 ST 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 groups
  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