International evaluation of water research in Finland

1
International evaluation of water research in
Finland

• Liselotte Sundstöm

2
Background

• Decision by the Research Council for Biosciences
  and Environment in 2006
• The previous evaluation in the 1980s
  (hydrobiology)
• During the past 10-15 years several research
  programmes in which water research has been
  prominent
• Identification of issues in need of development
  in the field Bonus
• The aim a comprehensive evaluation of the
  present quality of water research and its
  development
• Researcher-driven approach

3
Steering group

• Prof. Liselotte Sundström (chair), Academy of
  Finland, Research council for Biosciences and
  Environment
• Prof. Johanna Buchert, Academy of Finland,
  Research council for Natural Sciences and
  Engineering
• Senior adviser Minna Hanski, Ministry of
  Agriculture and Forestry
• Prof. Marja-Liisa Hänninen, Academy of Finland,
  Research council for Health
• Prof. Juha Kämäri, Academy of Finland, research
  council for biosciences and environment
• Prof. Jaakko Pehkonen, Academy of Finland,
  Research council for Culture and Society

4
The Panel

• prof. Brian Moss (chair), University of Liverpool
  (limnology and freshwater ecology,
  eutrophication)
• prof. Wolfgang Fennel (physical oceonography,
  physicsbiology, Baltic Sea)
• prof. Chinnaya Namasivayam, Bharathiar
  University/Univ. of Wageningen (environmentalwate
  r chemistry)
• prof. Sybil Seitzinger, Rutgers University
  (biogeochemistry, nutrient dynamics,
  land/atmosphere/ocean interactions)
• prof. Pauline Snoeijs, Uppsala University (marine
  and brackish water ecology and ecophysiology)
• Senior scíentist John Stegeman, WHOI
  (ecotoxicology)
• prof. Dan Rosbjerg, technical University of
  Denmark (hydrology, water resource management)

5
Terms of Reference

• Document produced by the steering group
• Provided a common basis for the panel and the
  units to be evaluated
• Defined
• the field to be evaluated
• the key goals of evaluation
• issues to be evaluated
• Rules of evaluation (confidentality, publicity,
  impartiality)

6
Delimitation of the evaluation

• Public research conducted in universities and
  research institutes
• Emphasis on natural sciences
• Monitoring and company-driven research excluded
• Focus on quality of research and researcher
  training
• Evaluation period 2002-2006
• Focus on suface waters
• In practice water research of importance for
  biological and ecological processes in the
  aquatic environment

7
Objectives of the evaluation

• Targets
• Scientific quality in research and training
• Research environment and organisation
• Research system
• Outreach to society

• Outcome
• Identification of strengths and weaknesses
• Suggestions and recommendations for improvement

16.11.2009
7
8

• Scientific quality
• productivity and international scientific
  standing of research and research training
• innovations, challenges and strategies in the
  research

• Research environment and research organisation
• organization of activities in terms of leadership
  and administration
• congruence between the research unit(s) and the
  host organization
• involvement in national and international
  research networks
• interdisciplinarity

16.11.2009
8
9

• Research system
• promotion of scientific excellence in terms of
  strategic plans, staff, funding, infrastructure,
  and mobility?
• synergies in terms of cooperation and division of
  labour

• Outreach to society
• activity and efficiency in communicating findings
  to stakeholders, policy makers, and other members
  of the society
• Indicators expert tasks, popularised works,
  patenting, technology transfer and cooperation
  with other sectors of society

16.11.2009
9
10
Outcome
Twofold Feedback to individual units
Assessment of current standing

• Identification of strengths and weaknesses
• Identification of potential, but as yet not
  realised, synergies
• Suggestions and recommendations for improvement
  on
• focus and emphasis
• networking and use of infrastructure
• scientific quality and innovation
• outreach to policy makers and stake holders

16.11.2009
10
11
Tasks, responsibilities and work arrangements

• Panel members set responsibilities within the
  group and together with the Evaluation Secretary
  Dr Timo Huttula
• The evaluation Office provided all evaluation
  documents and background information
• The material consisted of evaluation documents,
  the units presentations, interviews and
  discussions
• Desk research was carried out before the Panels
  visit to Finland
• Each research unit had an opportunity to present
  the focal points of the units research.

12
Impartiality, confidentiality and publicity

• The evaluation adhered to the impartiality rules
  common to the field of evaluation
• Panel members undertook not to make use of and
  not to divulge to third parties any non-public
  facts or information
• The evaluation report was confidential and only
  for official use until publication.