and other experts who deal with sustainable development strategies and policies. The network covers all 28 EU Member States, plus other European countries.
In Europe, austerity, budget cuts, unemployment, ageing, migration, and climate change are only a few of the many issues that can be cited as examples of the effects of such crises.
and present several examples that help to understand how social innovation works in practice. This QR comprises four chapters:
In Europe, austerity, budget cuts, unemployment, ageing, migration, and climate change are only a few of the issues that can be cited as examples of the effects of such crises.
and it is concerned very with wellbeing (BEPA, 2010, p. 6). Also based on the work by Nicholls and Murdock (2012), in their review of the use of the term‘social innovation',Caulier-Grice et al.
and, 5) a model of governance, empowerment and capacity building. 1 Our perspective on social innovation is guided in many ways by the work done by the FP7 project TEPSIE (http://www. tepsie. eu),
therefore, EU policy, social enterprises contribute to social cohesion, employment and the reduction of inequalities,
this section aims at mapping and summarising the main initiatives and actions that constitute the work done until now by the European commission
therefore, to facilitate the market uptake of social innovation solutions and job creation. The main objectives are described as:(
As an immediate step, it will pilot a European Public sector Innovation Scoreboard as a basis for further work to benchmark public sector innovation.
The recent Staff Working Document (SWD) on Innovation Union (EC, 2014) takes stock of how it has been implemented and
and third sector workers with other innovators from across Europe, with the goal of becoming a hub for innovative thinkers from all member states can join and meet.
The Competition invites Europeans to develop new solutions to reduce unemployment and minimize its effects on the economy and society.
The first two editions focused on the best social innovation solutions to help people move towards work or into new types of work.
EU funding Direct funding to support social innovation is offered by the EU programme for Employment
integrating critical analysis of current and previous work with future-oriented methodologies, new actionable knowledge and continual stakeholder participation.
promotion of civic capitalism and changes to social service provision through a. investigation of key processes within social enterprises for delivering inclusion
The Transition concept emerged from the work of permaculture11 designer Rob Hopkins with his students of Kinsale Further Education College.
places that work for the people living in them and are suited far better to dealing with the shocks that will accompany economic
'The activities of the SI Park aim at creating employment opportunities in an area of economic and social decline, at finding innovative solution to unmet social needs,
SI Park works mainly in the development of large scale social enterprises, generating high local impact
Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the European commission Communication‘Research and innovation as sources of renewed growth COM (2014) 339'.
and work to coordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, The netherlands, New zealand
, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United kingdom and the United states. The Commission of the European communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation's statistics gathering
or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies. com. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-general of the OECD. The opinions expressed
Tom Griffin, Senior Statistical Adviser to the UNDP Human Development Report; and Ari LATVALA from the European commission, DG Enterprise and Industry.
In the OECD context, the work has benefited from a grant from the Danish Government. The views expressed are those of the authors
whereby a lot of work in data collection and editing is wasted or hidden behind a single number of dubious significance.
These will be the subject of future work. In particular the following aspects should receive more attention in future versions of this handbook:
and combination of variables into a meaningful composite indicator under a fitness-for-purpose principle (involvement of experts and stakeholders is envisaged at this step).
when data are scarce (involvement of experts and stakeholders is envisaged at this step). To check the quality of the available indicators.
as well as the next, should involve experts and stakeholders as much as possible, in order to take into account multiple viewpoints and to increase the robustness of the conceptual framework and set of indicators.
data on the number of employees that use computers might not be available. Instead, the number of employees who have access to computers could be used as a proxy.
As in the case of soft data, caution must be taken in the utilisation of proxy indicators.
e N is the total number of experts surveyed. Pi is the i-th percentile of the distribution of the indicator tqc x and p an arbitrary threshold around the mean.
when by apparent redundancy. For example in the CI of E-business Readiness the indicator 1 I Percentage of firms using Internet and indicator 2
Alternatively, participatory methods that incorporate various stakeholders experts, citizens and politicians can be used to assign weights.
In the budget allocation approach, experts are given a budget of N points, to be distributed over a number of individual indicators,
this method can induce serious cognitive stress in the experts who are asked to allocate the budget.
While they can be used as summary indicators to guide policy and data work, they can also be decomposed such that the contribution of subcomponents
This step is also very important to identify redundancies among selected phenomena and to evaluate possible gaps in basic data.
Interval scaling is the best that can be done in most scientific work and even this level of measurement is all too rare in social sciences.
When the dependent variable has more than two categories then it is a case of multiple Discriminant analysis (or also Discriminant Factor analysis or Canonical Discriminant analysis), e g. to discriminate countries on the basis of employment patterns in nine industries (predictors.
This is similar to the budget allocation method (see below) where experts are asked to assign weights
Allocation Process (BAP), experts on a given theme (e g. innovation, education, health, biodiversity,) described by a set of indicators are asked to allocate a budget of one hundred points to the indicator set,
It is essential to bring together experts representing a wide spectrum of knowledge and experience to ensure that a proper weighting system is established.
Special care should be taken in the identification of the population of experts from which to draw a sample,
stratified or otherwise. 31 It is crucial that the selected experts are not specialists for individual indicators,
For example, a biodiversity index should be handled by biodiversity experts, not by ornithology experts. It is also noteworthy that at the top level,
the experts should be those who decide on the relative (political) weight of economic, social and environmental questions,
Selection of experts for the valuation; Allocation of budgets to the individual indicators; Calculation of weights;
In addition, redundancy allows for a measure of judgment errors, an inconsistency ratio. Small inconsistency ratios the suggested rule-of-thumb is less than 0. 1,
it relies on the opinion of people (e g. experts, politicians, citizens), who are asked to choose which set of individual indicators they prefer,
Unemployment (Storrie & Bjurek, 1999; 2000). ) The indicator is sensitive to national policy priorities, in that the weights are determined endogenously by the observed performances (this is a useful secondbest approach
Employment Outlook (OECD, 1999; Composite Indicator on E-business Readiness (EC, 2004b; National Health care System Performance (King's Fund.
) Eco-indicator 99 (Pré-Consultants NL, 2000)( weights based on survey from experts; Overall Health System Attainment (WHO, 2000)( weights based on survey from experts.
Weighting is based on expert opinion and not on technical manipulations. Expert opinion is likely to increase the legitimacy of the composite
Allocating a certain budget over a too large number of indicators may lead to serious cognitive stress for the experts,
if the expert feels that not enough has been done to tackle them). 102 HANDBOOK ON CONSTRUCTING COMPOSITE INDICATORS:
For example, if a hypothetical composite were formed by inequality, environmental degradation, GDP per capita and unemployment, two countries
i e. the compensatory and non-compensatory, can be derived directly from the seminal work of Borda (1784) and Condorcet (1785).
5 X Weighting Scheme 1 BAP 2 AHP 3 BOD The last uncertain factor, 6 X, is used to select the expert.
In this experiment, there are 20 experts. Once an expert has been selected at runtime via the trigger 6 X,
the weights assigned by that expert (either for the BAP or AHP schemes) are assigned to the data.
Clearly the selection of the expert has no bearing when BOD is used (3 5 X=).However,
this uncertain factor would be generated in each individual Monte carlo simulation, given that the row dimension of the Monte carlo sample (constructive dimension) should be fixed in a Monte carlo experiment,
and the (lack of) consensus among experts on how TAI should be built, it would have to be concluded that TAI is not a robust measure of countries'technology achievement.
of country rank Non-additive Expert selection Weighting Aggregation Exclusion/Inclusion Normalisation Note: Results based on first-order indices.
Singapore Korea, Rep. of Total effect sensitivity index Expert selection Weighting Aggregation Exclusion/Inclusion Normalisation Figure 21.
425 0. 180 Weighting Scheme 0. 038 0. 327 0. 288 Expert selection 0. 068 0. 402 0. 334 Sum
. 078 Weighting Scheme 0. 212 0. 623 0. 410 Expert selection 0. 202 0. 592 0. 390 Sum 0. 550
it is the choice of aggregation methods and of experts which together with indicator inclusion/exclusion dominate the uncertainty in the country ranks.
The present work is perhaps timely, as it seems to respond to an increasing interest in these measures.
Anglo-saxon and Continental, makes use of a plot of strictness of employment protection legislation (a composite),
versus unemployment benefits. Similarly, Nicoletti and others make use of factor analysis in the analysis of, for example,
) Another example can be found in the work of Amartya Sen. Sen was opposed initially to composite indicators
of product market regulation with an extension to employment protection legislation, OECD, Economics department working papers No. 226, ECO/WKP (99) 18. http://www. oecd. org/eco/eco.
Mcgraw-hill. OECD (1999), Employment Outlook, Paris. OECD (2003), Quality Framework and Guidelines for OECD Statistical Activities, www. oecd. org/statistics.
Pré Consultants (2000 The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. http://www. pre. nl/eco-indicator99/ei99-reports. htm Podinovskii V. V. 1994), Criteria
Storrie D. and Bjurek H. 1999), Benchmarking European labour market performance with efficiency frontier technique, Discussion Paper FS I 00-2011.
Report presented to the European commission, DG employment and social affairs. Tabachnick, B.,Fidell L. 1989), Using Multivariate statistics, Harper & Row Publishers, New york, pp. 746.
1999). 31 In 1991,400 German experts were asked to allocate a budget to several environmental indicators related to an air pollution problem.
although the experts came from opposing social spheres like the industrial and the environmental sectors (Jesinghaus, in Moldan & Billharz,
1997). 32 The exercise was carried out at the JRC through interviewing experts in the field. 33 A subset of indicators Y is preferentially independent of Yc (the complement of Y) only if any conditional preference among elements of Y,
and is composed of European commission officials, experts from the industry, policy makers, and academia 14. The first projects related to smart grids were grouped within the Integration of Renewable Energy Sources and Distributed Generation into the European Electricity Grid cluster.
, Vision and strategy for Europe's electricity networks of the future, Smart Grids European Technology Platform, 2006.14 Task force Smart Grids Vision and Work Programme, 2010.
Our values are aligned to the needs of employers in all sectors and we ensure that, through our qualifications,
and their delivery meet the diverse needs of trainee professionals and their employers. We support our 147
and equipping them with the skills required by employers. We work through a network of 83 offices and centres and more than 8, 500 Approved Employers worldwide,
who provide high standards of employee learning and development. Through our public interest remit, we promote the appropriate regulation of accounting.
We also conduct relevant research to ensure that the reputation and influence of the accountancy profession continues to grow,
Independent evidence consistently demonstrates that accountants are the most commonly used professional advisers of SMES,
The role of advisers such as accountants, must be considered carefully by the European commission and other stakeholders.
business advisers and regulators to ensure that companies are able to access objective, comparable and relevant information when choosing services and providers.
Ensuring that SMES'independent advisers, including accountants, are engaged in this debate will be crucial in ensuring that SMES are represented better in their use of cloud services.
and ACCA will seek to build on this existing knowledge through further engagement and promotion of the relevant initiatives.
platformslack of access to fast internetlack of government actiontoo complexperceived security risklack of government initiativesno need/customers don't require thislack of access to appropriate specialists/advisers/consultantslack of support
This is evidence of SMES and their advisers'learning, in the sense that more savvy suppliers are daunted not by complexity
Role of stakeholdersit has already been suggested by experts in the field (Nienhuis and Bryant 2010
of universal platformslack of access to fast internetlack of government actiontoo complexperceived security risklack of government initiativeslack of need/customers generally don't requirethislack of access to appropriate specialists/advisers/consultantslack
of government actiontoo complexperceived security risklack of government initiativesno need/customers don't require thislack appropriate specialists/advisers/consultantslack of support from bankslack of awarenesstoo expensivesmes are not using P2pfinancesmes are using P2p
/customers don't require thislack of access to appropriate specialists/advisers/consultantslack of support from bankslack of awarenesstoo expensivesmes don't use e-commercesmes use e-commercefigure 6:
accountants and other advisers can provide important links to the SME sector. In some areas however, their own understanding will need to improve first
Opportunities for European Cloud computing Beyond 2010, Expert Group Report, online report<http://cordis. europa. eu/fp7/ict/ssai/docs/cloud-report-final. pdf,
We believe that ecoinnovations in SMES will contribute to a making a green economy work in Europe and worldwide.
and other materials for reuse from Thames Water's replacement works. This has injected new life into an old deposition site near Chatham Docks
%since the start of the initiative and recruited more than 100 employees. www. shields-e. com Good practice examples The Footprint Chronicles:
consultants or can be completed by other technical or business functions as part of other responsibilities. In smaller companies design, market research and R&d may be integrated fairly closely.
diverse concepts and involve stakeholders/experts. Reward buy in when eco-innovative ideas are implemented. Choose whether to pursue patents to protect the novel function,
involving all the company's personnel from shop floor through to senior management. www. orangebox. com www. ecodesigncentrewales. org/sites/default/files/EDC ORANGEBOX ENABLINGECODESIGNINWELSHINDUSTRY. pdf Crawford Hansford & Kimber:
Promotion based on clear evidence-based claims related to environmental performance will enhance internal and external reputation.
Researching competitors product environmental performance may identify relative strengths of your product that you can exploit in promotion.
do need you to set up a partnership with consultants or companies that posses this expertise? do need you to train yourself
Start promotion within a community of interest e g. networks of suppliers and customers and extend it to the likeminded crowd who have affinity with your product,
innovation experts and eco-innovative cluster organisations. Among many support schemes it has one that helps SMES with developing
CAPS representatives will describe the inputs of their project including the budget, the human resources available at project level,
As an example, a project can select impact on employment and impact on information as relevant and exclude impact on education
and soon their results will be assessed by individual panels of individual experts (annual reviews). There will also be an impact assessment in January 2014,
MARIA ANVRET Senior Executive Scientific Expert and Advisor, Prof. Phd, FRCPATH, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise RAPPORTEURS:
and finally, CEPS staff for creating the conditions for a smooth and constructive sharing of experiences and expertise within the context of this very valuable initiative.
the limited mobility of skilled workers throughout the EU27; the absence of legal certainty as regards patent law, technology transfer and standardisation processes;
and IP management in universities and public research organisations The‘Third Mission'launched by the Lisbon Agenda for universities requires specialised human resources that universities should be able to form
and retain, with prospects of a professional career. A NEW APPROACH TO INNOVATION POLICY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 9 EU institutions should devote efforts to improving the‘professionalisation'of the management of public-funded universities and research institutions.
ii) they are associated with highly-skilled employment; iii) they are multi-disciplinary, cutting across many technology areas;
increasing venture capital, increasing the availability of skilled labour and enhancing international cooperation. In more in detail, short-term solutions include better application of existing state aid rules, a level international playing field and improved access to finance.
various preparatory policy documents, communications and staff working documents in particular, the Communication Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world;
the promotion of knowledge partnerships and the strengthening of links between education, business, research and innovation, including through the EIT,
Within the CIP programme, there are three separate sub-programmes, each with separate work programmes. In addition, three programmes indirectly support innovation (TENS for transport and for energy, Marco polo and IDABC/ISA for egovernment.
), TAXUD (fiscal incentives), ESTAT (statistics, community innovation survey) and JLS (mobility of 3rd country researchers and immigration of high-skilled workers.
while improving the existing systems was declared by the Commission in its Communication More Research and Innovation Investing for Growth and Employment:
requiring advice by experts that need to evaluate the costs and benefits of each route.
This fragmentation and the complexities of the system, coupled with the costs and the risk of costly litigation, leave European SMES with the impression of having large parts of Europe in
the number of staff examiners that each office has), or because of different propensities by firms and institutions to apply for patent protections,
To be sure, in light of the increasing importance of patents, policymakers should undertake all possible options to organise the internal work of patent offices more efficiently and effectively.
Currently, there is at least one potential conflict of interests that might prevent the adoption of necessary solutions; NPOS all have a seat on the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation.
i. Participation in the IP5 Programme that aims at eliminating unnecessary duplication of work among the offices,
It works on ten work-packages, each one led by one of the offices. 54 PATENT LAW AND POLICY IN EUROPE the leading patent office in the world,
First of all, LDCS are usually countries in the world where the cost of labour is a fraction of
backed also by important scholarly works on this topic, 33 or the lowering of barriers by refusing intellectual property protection for some technologies. 34 Compulsory licensing is disfavoured always by the industry,
The same study quotes earlier surveys such as the one conducted by the German Occupational safety and Health committee,
A vision for 2020, Report of the Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardisation System, exp384, February 2010, available online at:
http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/files/express/exp 384 express report final distrib en. pdf. The Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardisation System (EXPRESS) comprised 30 individual
experts from European, national and international standards organisations, industry, SMES, NGOS, trade unions, academia, fora and consortia and public authorities from EU member states and EFTA countries.
The enhanced interoperability triggered by standardisation helps improve product quality because a large number of undertakings work for the improvement of the standard.
and reviewed by legal and commercial experts; it also brings a high antitrust risk, even if group discussions are allowed formally not;
/primapagina/stampa/SME%20access%20report%20200 9-08-21. pdf). European commission (2005), Communication More Research and Innovation Investing for Growth and Employment:
research organisations, C (2008) 1329,4 October. 84 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardisation System (EXPRESS)( 2010), Standardisation for a competitive and innovative Europe:
a vision for 2020, Report of the Expert Panel for the Review of the European Standardisation System, exp384, February (http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/files/express
. Harald Heiske Expert on IPR & Standards Siemens AG harald. heiske@siemens. com Mrs. Jacqueline Hunter
Mr. Magnus Madfors Director, R&d Policy Ericsson EU Affairs Office magnus. madfors@ericsson. com Mr. Thomas Marlow Seconded National Expert DG
CEPS consuelo. pacchioli@ceps. eu Ms. Anne-Sophie Paquez Adviser, R&d, Innovation Affairs Businesseurope a. paquez@businesseurope. eu Mr. Ralf Rammig
-EIB k. uppenberg@eib. org Ms. Linda Van Beek Advisor European Affairs VNO-NCW (Confederation of Netherlands Industry & Employers) beek@vno
-ncw. nl Mrs. Joke van den Bandt-Stel Permanent Delegate Brussels Office VNO-NCW (Confederation of Netherlands Industry & Employers) bandt@vno-ncw
which have acquired these competencies through acquisitions or recruitment. A dynamic business environment requires changes in core competencies.
Consultants always bring new ideas and provide their help in implementing new business models. Those models and methods are not good for every kind of business.
Figure 1. Framework of ICT practices in companies At the highest level of Figure1 are managers and executives,
At the second level are professionals and technical workers, who act as R&d personnel, product designers,
engineers and knowledge workers of the same kind. The common aspect for the second level is that these are normally middle management employees.
The third level of the Marchand et al. model includes the process managers, the employees whose responsibilities include the co-ordination of cross-functional or horizontal processes and communication with partners like suppliers and customers.
The bottom level represents the operational knowledge workers and supervisors. These people are responsible for the direct operations of company and the processes through
which products and services are provided and distributed. All these levels need different kinds of ICT and these levels have four Internal Auditing & Risk management Anul V
and record the actions and performance of operational employees in carrying out their tasks. But there is still something wrong in the way companies utilize ICT in business. 4. The gap between the development of business
There are few employees and specialists who clearly understand business and technology. Figure 3 below presents ideas on the gap between strategic business and technology development.
not only at management and executive levels but also in at development and realization levels. The strategy process requires knowledge and participation from many levels of organizations and also from different business units.
Assessing Europe's University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research EUR 24187 EN European Research Area Science & society EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research
http://ec. europa. eu/research/research-eu EUROPEAN COMMISSION Assessing Europe's University-Based Research Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research RTD.
This is the question experts were asked to answer, following a 2006 Commission Communication on the modernisation of universities1,
9 1. 1 Executive Summary...9 1. 2 The Way Forward Recommendations...15 2 Introduction...
75 9. 7 RESEARCH OUTPUT PER ACADEMIC STAFF...76 9. 8 NUMBER OF CO-PUBLICATIONS...
147 9 Overview 1. 1 Executive Summary HEIGHTENED IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSITY-BASED RESEARCH AND OF ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITYBASED RESEARCH The political context Assessment of university-based research1 (AUBR) has become a major issue for a wide range of stakeholders at all levels.
However, assessment experts have expressed serious reservations about the methodologies used by global ranking organisations. In particular, doubt has been cast on the possibility of comparing whole universities in other words, 1 In this report,
remit and composition The Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research was established in July 2008 to identify the parameters to be observed in research assessment as well as analyse major assessment
The Expert Group had 15 members from 12 EU Member States, Australia, a European association and an international organisation.
and university senior management. Academically speaking the experts represented a variety of disciplines, including arts and design, humanities, socioeconomic sciences,
and natural sciences. 2 That people from such diverse backgrounds with initially different views on, inter alia, assessment methods and appropriate research outputs and outcomes reached agreement on a number of basic principles and a new approach to AUBR,
Activities undertaken and outcomes reached by the AUBR Expert Group Two major interrelated activities were undertaken:
in order to have the provisional outcomes of their work validated by invited key experts and stakeholder representatives.
-and interdisciplinary work, as well as research in emerging new disciplines; Recognise the whole spectrum of research,
3) Strengths and weaknesses of the various indicators used in assessment exercises The Expert Group analysed the different characteristics and dimensions of indicators,
which occurred during the course of the Expert Group's deliberations, had an impact on the Group's discussions.
Members of the Expert Group reviewed practices in their home countries and universities. Outcomes These case studies represent different approaches and objectives.
the Expert Group wishes to make the following general recommendations and, linked to these, propose a new approach to AUBR.
A new approach The Expert Group developed the outline of a multidimensional research assessment matrix.
and attended by some twenty external experts and representatives of stakeholder organisations, and 15 officials from DG Research and other Commission services.
The key objective was to validate the provisional results of the Expert Group's work.
and opportunities presented by the report of the Expert Group should be taken up in the current discussions about the further development of the European Research Area.
These and other recommendations were incorporated into the Expert Group's final report, and specifically into the recommendations to stakeholders set out below.
European and international context for the establishment of the Expert Group on the Assessment of University-based Research (AUBR.
The remit of the Expert Group is explained, and a summary of its activities and findings is presented. 2. 1 University-based Research in the Knowledge Economy Around the world,
employment and social cohesion'the European union (section 12) confirmed its support for the objectives of the European Research Area.
In response, the European commission established the Expert Group on the Assessment of University-Based Research to develop a multidimensional methodology to assess the quality of research produced in universities
Activities Undertaken by the Expert Group The Expert Group met on seven occasions between July 2008 and July 2009 at meetings in DG Research, 8, Square de Meeûs, Brussels. The‘core group
the two Rapporteurs and the European commission staff responsible for this activity, met prior to each meeting to prepare the work of the expert group. 22 A workshop with Commissioner Potocnik,
fifteen members of the Expert Group plus more than twenty invited key experts and fifteen officials from different parts of the EU Commission was organised in April 2009 to validate the analysis and approach of the Expert Group.
A summary of the workshop's conclusions is contained in Appendix V. The Expert Group undertook a range of activities to inform its deliberations.
The Expert Group concludes, however, that contrary to providing an accurate and useful assessment of research,
the Expert Group Has illustrated 1 the wide range of users and uses of research assessment information;
and underpinned the work of the Expert Group on AUBR. Chapter 4 examines key characteristics of research assessment,
and underpinned the Expert Group's approach to research assessment. This embraces an inclusive definition of research and disciplines,
The OECD Frascati Manual (OECD, 2002) says R&d‘comprises creative work undertaken on a systematic basis
which are open to authentication and scrutiny by experts. Differences between disciplines or research fields derive from their history and the way in
major works in production or exhibition and/or award-winning design, patents or plant breeding rights, major art works, policy documents or briefs, research or technical reports
, legal cases, maps, translations or editing of major works within academic standards. Table 1 identifies the primary form of communications for the main discipline groups.
while the arts produce major art works, compositions and media productions. In summary, Table 1 illustrates the diversity of research outlets,
‘Users'include policymakers and government agencies, universities, public or private research organisations (PROS), researchers or graduate students, employers, civil society and the media.
and academic recruitment, aid research partnerships (with other academic institutions or with public/private organizations), and initiate/sustain philanthropic relationships.
or Councils o HE Executives and Management o HE Research Groups Governments In addition to the reasons stated above,
Capital and employment flows to where talent and quality education resides. If local/regional governments are a financial contributor to higher education
etc. o EU and Member Governments o Ministries of Education/Higher education or Enterprise and Employment o Local and Regional Authorities o HE Agencies Other Government agencies require good comparative
including trends in graduate employment, which in turn is used as a proxy for career opportunities. Likewise, academics and researchers
Increasingly, employers use such data to identify likely sources of potential employees. o Private firms and entrepreneurs o Public organizations o Employers Civil Society and Civic Organizations
This may include community and residential organizations, trade unions, etc. o Non-governmental organizations o Community Organizations and Trade unions Sponsors and Private Investors As HE diversifies its income sources, the role of benefactors, sponsors,
philanthropy and private giving grows. These groups, which include alumni, are likely to use benchmarking data to identify potential‘investment'opportunities,
how much output vis-á-vis funding Quality of academic staff and Phd students Attraction capacity:
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally HE Executives/Management Policy and planning Strategic positioning Research strategy development/management Investor confidence/value-for-money
and efficiency Quality assurance Publicity Student and academic recruitment Improve and benchmark performance and quality Institutional and discipline/field data re. level of intensity, expertise,
how much output vis-a-vis funding Quality of academic staff and Phd students Attraction capacity: recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Identification of Partnerships (academic, public/private sector, NGOS, research organisations, etc.
HE Research Groups Strategic positioning Research strategy development/management Investor confidence/value-for-money and efficiency Student and academic recruitment Discipline data re. level of intensity, expertise,
quality and competence benchmarked against peer institutions Quality of academic staff and Phd students Attraction capacity:
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Identification of Partnerships (academic, public/private sector, NGOS, research organisations, etc.
GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES EU and National Governments Define policy and inform decisions about HE system
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Quality of academic staff and Phd students Efficiency level:
level of use and efficiency Ministries of Education/Higher education or Enterprise and Employment policy and planning Strategic positioning of HE institutions Quality, sustainability, relevance and impact of research activity Research strategy
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Efficiency level: how much output vis-a-vis funding Research infrastructure:
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Efficiency level: how much output vis-a-vis funding HE Agencies Define policy
recruitment of students, academics and researchers from outside region and internationally Quality of academic staff and Phd students Efficiency level:
quality and competence 32 Student and Academic Recruitment Benchmarking against peer institutions, nationally and worldwide Quality of academic staff and Phd students INDIVIDUALS Academics and Researchers Identify career opportunities Identify research partners Identify best research infrastructure and support for research Institutional and field data re level of intensity,
expertise, quality, competence and sustainability Performance of individual institution benchmarked against peers in field of interest Employment conditions Impact of research on teaching,
Staff/student ratio Institutional research support Students Inform choice of HEI Identify career opportunities Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
competence and sustainability Performance of individual institution benchmarked against peers in field of interest Research capacity of institution and research team, e g. graduate students/academic ratio, age of Phd students,
and support Graduate career and employment trends Quality of the research infrastructure Staff/student ratio PEER HEIS Identify peer HEIS
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
competence and sustainability Performance of individual institution benchmarked against peers in field of interest Competitive positioning of institution and researchers Trends in graduate employment and competence Quality of HE programme,
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
competence and sustainability Performance of individual institution benchmarked against peers in field of interest Competitive positioning of institution and researchers Trends in graduate employment and competence Quality of HE programme,
and teaching Employers Quality, sustainability, relevance and impact of research activity Identify potential partners and expertise Identify consultancy,
and expertise Identify potential employees Institutional and field data re level of intensity, expertise, quality,
competence and sustainability Performance of individual institution benchmarked against peers in field of interest Competitive positioning of institution and researchers Trends in graduate employment and competence Quality of HE programme,
quality and competence Competitive positioning of institution and researchers Trends in graduate employment and competence Quality of academic staff and Phd students SPONSORS AND PRIVATE INVESTORS Benefactors/Philanthropists
relevance and impact of research activity Quality of academic staff and Phd student Contributor to own brand image Institutional data re level of quality and international competitiveness
and worldwide Quality of academic staff and Phd students Alumni Determine institutional performance vis-a-vis national and international competitors Institutional data re level of quality and international competitiveness
sustainability, relevance and impact of research activity Quality of academic staff and Phd student Reflect pride
and worldwide Quality of academic staff and Phd students PUBLIC OPINION Determine institutional performance vis-a-vis national and international competitors Quality, sustainability, relevance and impact of research activity Student
how much output vis-a-vis funding 35 3. 5 Summary The Expert Group recognizes that new knowledge is divided no longer strictly between basic and applied activity
and quality while industry and employer groups want to be able to identify potential employees. 3. Some of the required data may be readily available
information on trends in graduate employment and competence are not available or counted in a similar manner to facilitate comparability. 4. Existing experience also illustrates that
Typical examples are the number of (academic) staff employed or revenues such as competitive, project funding for research.
A typical example is the total of human resources employed by university departments, offices or affiliated agencies to support
graduate employment is a proxy for the adequacy of graduates for labour market requirements; budget and research expenditure is a proxy for the quality of the infrastructure;
'An alternative view argues that scientific-scholarly research work, regardless of discipline, should produce universal knowledge
but more work is required. 4. 3 Unit of Assessment: Knowledge Clusters There are many types of research assessment processes at the university and national level, focusing on different institutional or cognitive units.
The Expert Group has adopted the concept of‘knowledge cluster'as the basic unit of assessment.
including possible implications for their own work or that of their colleagues. They may evaluate research in terms of what they know,
Honesty, Openness and Fairness Confidentiality Conflict of interest Respect for Human Subjects Respect for Animal Subjects 41 Assessment of Risk and Benefits Research should follow‘good practice'with respect to avoiding plagiarism,
and ensuring professional behaviour between supervisor and research students. Today, completion of an ethical statement or formal ethical approval by a university or national Research Ethics committee is required by most funding organisations,
and additional work needs to be done in order to identify appropriate indicators, but also develop mechanisms to collect accurate and comparable data.
increased employment; reduced costs; increased innovation capability and global competitiveness; improvements in service delivery; as well as unquantifiable economic returns resulting from social and public policy adjustments. 42 Social Benefits, e g. improving people's health and quality of life;
Research outputs per‘Research Academic'staff Number of publications and other research outputs per academic staff or full-time equivalent (FTE.
Comparable definition of‘Academic Staff'and‘Research Time'can be difficult. Agreement on definition of‘Research Academic'.
Discipline specific journal rankings, especially in social sciences and humanities, based on expert opinion in combination with indicators.
Number Prestigious Nat'l/int'l Awards and Prizes A count of the number of prestigious national and international prizes won either in total or per academic staff.
Research income per academic staff or FTE Research income per academic staff or FTE supports cross-institutional comparisons,
adjusted for scale of institution. Important measure of research activity. Comparability is dependent upon institutional mission, context and discipline.
Employability of Phd graduates Industry employment of Phd graduates can be an indicator of the contribution of research to the highly Used to measure the quality of the graduates,
community) Provides measure of the extent of income from external-commissioned or contracted work. This is an area of increasing significance to policy makers.
SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALE Postgraduate Research Student Load The ratio of research students (or Phd students) per academic staff or per‘Research Active'staff.
'Percentage‘Research Active'per total academic staff Ratio of the number of‘Research Active'per total academic staff.
Develop appropriate indicators to ensure good ethical practice is promoted without interfering in processes of discovery. 49 4. 10 Summary The Expert Group notes that indicators are chosen as a method of measuring the various aspects of the research process.
The Expert Group recommends that this Matrix be used to form the basis of a full-fledged personalised
In Finland, France, The netherlands and the UK, panels include international experts; in Finland, France and The netherlands, this also involves visits to the university.
Peer review panels are used also to assess the quality of research outputs and outlets of individual researchers for career promotion,
the Expert Group has developed a Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix discussed below. 5. 2 Framework for Research Assessment Assessing university-based research is a complex process.
Indicators provide peer experts with condensed, systematic, verified and‘objective'information on the research performance of the knowledge cluster.
This can only be done by experts. Indicators aid good judgement by supporting or challenging peer assumptions, thereby making the assessment process more transparent.
Research income‘research active'as percentage of total academic staff; libraries, equipment, etc. Drive Research Mission Differentiation Research output/bibliometric data Output per research academic Peer review Self evaluation Ratio of research income:
Data on Research Outputs, including output per academic staff Data on ratio of research income:
Data on research outputs, including output per academic staff; Peer review and/or citation data to determine scholarly impact;
the names of experts being kept secret (Italy) and uncertainty about the way candidates are evaluated (Spain).
which the Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research was established by DG Research in 2008.
The Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research has proposed a Multidimensional Research Assessment Matrix.
This would substantially enhance its user-friendliness. 6. 3 Contribution to Future Research Assessment Exercises The AUBR Expert Group hopes that this report will raise awareness of the principles that need to be observed in assessment of university-based research
the Expert Group has identified a wide range of users who seek and require research assessment information for a variety of different and often conflicting uses;
In sum, the Expert Group hopes that this report will serve as a guide to Users of information on the quality of university-based research,
The Expert Group also hopes that this report will provide inspiration to the European commission and Member State governments to launch initiatives
I. Activities and Membership of Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research The members of the Expert Group were selected on the basis of their experience and knowledge of research assessment and higher education,
and a good mixture of academic, industrial and policymaking backgrounds and professional experiences. This group includes fifteen (15) members (including the Chairperson
including a representative of the European Universities Association (EUA), plus two (2) international experts. MACKIEWCZ Wolfgang (Chairperson) HAZELKORN Ellen (Rapporteur) BERGHOFF, Sonja (Rapporteur) BONACCORSI, Andrea BORRELL-DAMIAN, Lidia EMPLIT, Philippe INZELT, Annamaria MARKLUND, Goran
Paloma The Expert Group was coordinated by Adeline Kroll (Scientific Officer, EC DG/RTD Directorate, Unit C4 Universities and Researchers;
Curriculum vitae of Members of the Expert Group MACKIEWCZ Wolfgang (Chairperson. Wolfgang is director of the Language Centre and Honorary Professor of English Philology at the Freie Universität Berlin (FUB.
He chaired the Expert Group on the Humanities in FP7, he is the chair of the Expert Advisory Group FP7 Theme 8 and of the Assessment of University-Based Research Expert Group,
and he was rapporteur of the European commission's High Level Group on Multilingualism. Wolfgang Mackiewicz studied English and German at FUB and at the University of Leeds,
She is a Consultant to the OECD Programme on Institutional Management of Higher education (IMHE), and is associated also with the International Association of Universities (IAU).
Ellen is Rapporteur for the EU Expert Group on Assessment of University-based Research, and a member of National Digital Research Centre (NDRC) Management Board, the Arts, Humanities and Social sciences Foresight Working group Ireland,
She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Dean and European Academic Network (DEAN),
representing the academic staff. Philippe Emplit is a member of the Interuniversity Council CIUF of the Belgian Communauté française CFB, the organism responsible for collecting in a coherent way the statistics for all CFB universities.
She has been the first Hungarian representative in the OECD Working group of the National Experts of Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) for 12 years.
She is interested in the subject of mobility and knowledge flows focusing on the higher educated people, the human resources of S&t and the impact of foreign direct investments on mobility.
and Eurostat's indicator work and often assisted at the meetings of OECD's group of national experts of science and technology indicators, NESTI.
President of the Wollongong Women's Centre in the 1980s and Convener of the Richmond Education Centre, established by Labor's Schools Commission in the 1970s) and university bodies (i e. elected staff representative on the Councils of Prahran
Sue is convener of the NSW D/PVCR Group and a member of the Executive of Universities Australia'S d/PVCR Group.
and experts groups of the European commission, the High Level Expert Group on Reporting of Intellectual Capital for increasing investment in Research and development among them.
non-refereed, extracts of paper) Edited volumes of conference proceedings Audiovisual recordings Computer software, databases Technical drawings, designs or working models Design (major works
in production or exhibition and/or award-winning) Patents or plant breeding rights Art (major works-exhibitions, performances,
industry or other Technical reports Legal cases Entries in a dictionary/encyclopaedia Maps Translations and editing of major works Case studies Data collection is undertaken
and creative works. It is possible to combine both ISI and Scopus products in research assessment.
'In short, in spite of its widespread and influential adoption, this indicator works well for some disciplines and poorly for others.
It works well for disciplines, especially in the sciences, that are supported by coherent international research communities that have reached a reasonably broad consensus about the relative importance of the relevant journals.
It works less well for newer and emerging disciplines, disciplines linked to professional practice, fragmented research communities,
Their importance is assessed through a combination of an objective and truly unique internal monitor based on citation relationships among journals with assessments by experts from the various fields.
while the Norwegian Research Council is conducting a similar exercise based on the work carried out by NIFU STEP Institute.
rankings of journals based on impact factors do not correspond very well to rankings made by experts on the basis of their perception on the status or quality of these journals.
Curatorial/juried selection of work for exhibition, performance, recording, screening, etc.;Reviews of art works;
Publicly commissioned artworks, compositions, film/theatrical scripts, etc. Appointments to advisory committees in national or international organizations;
Normally, expert peer review or input is the basis of the award, election, invitation or appointment.
because the examination of Phd theses and submissions is undertaken by national and international expert peer researchers.
Some universities could require staff to achieve 2 or 3 out of these 4 indicators.
Used as a proportion of total academic staff, this indicator can assist universities in building research capacity.
This approach to indicators can also be drilled down differentially to faculties and other units within universities. 9. 7 RESEARCH OUTPUT PER ACADEMIC STAFF Description:
Number of publications and other outputs per academic staff or Full Time Equivalent (FTE. The total research output is divided by the respective number of staff.
Who is counted depends on the type of output e g. the number of Phd graduates should be related to the number of professors
whereas the number of publications might be better related to the number of all research active staff.
not all academic staff may be research active. Therefore, it is may be difficult to determine the right denominator
Number of Co-Publications within the Unit of Assessment or Collaborative Work with Researchers from other Universities/Organisations.
This indicator is important for identifying and supporting collaborative research work. It is based on a total count,
Pro Collaborative work with researchers in other universities, both nationally and internationally, shows the extent of a research engagement.
In other words, it works better for the sciences than the arts, humanities or social sciences. 9. 9 INDICATORS BASED ON INVESTMENT 9. 9. 1 EXTERNAL RESEARCH INCOME Description:
Pro Research income is a useful indicator for measuring the scale of the research enterprise and its capacity to secure additional income through competitive grants and contact research, especially in science, technology and medicine.
which need to be taken into account. 9. 9. 2 RESEARCH INCOME PER ACADEMIC STAFF Description:
Research Income Divided by the Number of Academic Staff or FTE. Pro This indicator enables assessment adjusted to the size of the knowledge cluster,
e g. the number of academic staff or FTE because of the way different universities and countries consider this category.
Industry Employment of Phd Graduates Universities track the career destinations of their Phd graduates and alumni via postgraduation Career Destination Surveys and Alumni Databases.
Curatorial/juried selection of work for exhibition, performance, recording, screening, etc.;Critical review of art works;
publicly commissioned artworks; Activities for public administration (committees, advisory roles; Standardisation bodies; Scientific communication (public understanding of science, conferences to the public, events, media coverage.
Case studies of the Research Assessment Experience 84 10.1 AUSTRALIA Executive Summary Australia's Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) will assess research quality within higher education institutions using a combination of indicators
internationally-recognised experts. ERA outcomes will be reported by institution and by discipline, identifying areas that are internationally competitive and emerging areas for further investment.
internationally-recognised experts. Key elements of the ERA methodology are described below. Discipline-specific Indicators are being,
Destabilisation and‘churn'in the system as the pressure to recruit talented staff results in rapid-paced mobility.
Increased differentiation amongst academic staff in terms of salaries and work-mix (teaching & research. Increased emphasis on effective performance management of academic units (faculties etc), research groups and individual academic staff.
Greater cohesion and organisation of discipline groupings, especially in professional fields such as creative arts, architecture, law, business and commerce,
88 10.2 UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES BRUXELLES BELGIUM Executive Summary In Belgium, assessment of university-based research has not yet been undertaken at national or regional/community level.
and an on-site visit of a panel of internationally recognised experts of the discipline in question.
a panel of 10 experts is convened by the academic coordinator; each team has to prepare a self evaluation document, based on a common template:
of senior scientists (permanent academic staff), based on a common format; 1. 7. Representative publications authored by members of the team
. 1. Staff 3. 2. Teaching activities (incl. size of the classes) 3. 3. Financial data 3. 4. Third-mission activities the documents prepared by the disciplinary
based on the analysis of this compilation, each expert assesses each team on seven indicators, giving a grade for each indicator (between 1 and 10);
"i e. internally available for ULB members of staff. The reports on discipline-specific teams are strictly"confidential,
pp. 45-57.91 10.3 FINLAND (AALTO UNIVERSITY) Executive Summary The research evaluation included some innovative ways of using the peer review method.
Thus, conducting a research evaluation even before the new university started its work was a logical decision.
As a result of the evaluation, senior management will know in which research areas Aalto University achieves the best results
Do the members of the Unit occupy important positions in influential academic and professional associations in the field?
Are they sought-after experts in tenure committees, chair appointments, research assessments and are invited they regularly to speak at the most important conferences in the field?
The relevant indicators of societal impact include expert tasks, popularised works, media visibility, external funding relating to research cooperation with nonacademic institutions (especially TEKES and EU funding), cooperation with the public and private sector outside academia, patents, start-up companies etc.
research strategy, including human resources strategy and the focus of research, as well as issues such as the availability and quality of support services, research infrastructure, databanks, the teaching load of research-active staff,
and the staff-student ratio. Future Potential. While it is impossible to assess the future,
the panels were asked to focus on such indicators of future research potential as the Unit's vision and plans for the future,
issues such as the age and career profile of the research-active staff, the size of the unit,
however, hope that compiling the documents urged them to think about these important things. 93 10.4 FINLAND (HELSINKI UNIVERSITY) Executive Summary The case study describes the research assessment exercise carried out by Helsinki University for its own purposes.
3) expert panels comprised of eminent foreign scholars/scientists; 4) site-visits of one week duration;
http://www. aka. fi/Tiedostot/Tiedostot/Julkaisut/Biotechnology%20in%20finland. pdf The Finnish Higher education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC, an independent expert body nominated by the Ministry
to acquaint foreign researchers (experts serving on evaluation panels) with the research carried out and the researchers working at the university in question.
list of research-active staff, description of the department's research profile (2 pages max.
complete list of publications, list of selected publications (2 per research-active staff) plus two copies of the publications selected, a short list of the best publications (three per permanent professorship
and editorial assignments), budget and external funding The assessment was conducted by 21 international peer review panels (altogether 148 experts:
All the staff of the Evaluation Office were recruited through an open application procedure. Costs: Salary costs of the Evaluation Office:
Such consequences can be avoided by providing external experts with precise descriptions of the different grades;
Perhaps the only way to obtain more reliable quantitative assessment results is to compare the outputs of departments with those of similar units at other universities. 96 10.5 FRANCE Executive Summary The case study describes the research assessment
'and deciding upon applications for promotion. Policy Objective (s: The main objective of AERES is the evaluation of all French research teams
99 10.6 GERMANY-FORSCHUNGSRATING (CONDUCTED BY WISSENSCHAFTSRAT Executive Summary The German Science Council Rating carried out a pilot study based on peer review, information from departments, metrics and a reviewers'panel.
In a multi-step assessment process, the institutions were evaluated first by at least two experts independently before each rating was discussed in plenary sessions.
Criteria and data are defined in a discipline-specific manner by experts from the individual fields of research.
In a multi-step assessment process, the institutions were evaluated first by at least two experts independently before each rating was discussed in plenary sessions.
-Research (Quality of research, Impact/effectiveness, efficiency)- Promotion of young researchers-Knowledge transfer (Transfer to society, knowledge dispersion) Indicators:
"Impact"relative to human resources; publications/citations/third-stream funding/patents per full-time equivalent researcher. Promotion of young researchers:
number of people working for their doctorate; number of (female) doctorates; Phd programmes; Phd process;
consultancy work. Knowledge dispersion: Number of vocational trainings finished; lifelong learning; examples of spreading knowledge outside the scientific community.
Time-frame: November 2005 December 2007 Costs: 1. 1 million euro in total. 15 to 16 peers per discipline, estimated work load about 4-5 (chemistry) and 8-10 weeks (sociology) respectively.
Dissemination, incl. how much information is available regarding data and methods: The final results from the pilot study were published in December 2007 (chemistry) and April 2008 (sociology.
Both expert groups and the steering committee have submitted reports on the pilot study to the Science and Humanities Council.
CHE RESEARCHRANKING Executive Summary CHE Rankings is a discipline-specific, multidimensional system aimed at providing information for students.
The ranking team is comprised of six CHE members of staff; additional human resources are provided by Die Zeit for the publication and programming of the online-version.
There are additional costs for the poll conducted among students and for the analyses of publications.
CHE now takes all publications into consideration that were produced by members of staff holding a doctorate.
105 10.8 GERMANY-INITIATIVE FOR EXCELLENCE Executive Summary The Initiative for Excellence has aroused some controversy in Germany
1. Graduate schools for the promotion of young researchers 2. Clusters of Excellence for the promotion of top-level research 3. Institutional Strategies for advancing top-level university research.
These were reviewed by internationally appointed panels of experts. The reviews of the Graduate schools and the Clusters were discussed in the‘Expert Commission,
These funds are to be available for the universities and their partner institutions for research and the promotion of young researchers until 2012.
107 10.9 HUNGARY Executive Summary The research assessment related exercise is based on the Act on Higher education (2005) and its complementary law (2007.
The halfhearted revamping of higher educational governance structures leaves plenty of potential for further improvements and legislation.
In the design stage of the indicators only non-independent experts were involved. In the preparatory phase of Agreement HEIS'selection criteria for indicators was to reach easily good performance
The HAS research assessment is an up-to-date version of West European practices. 110 10.10 IRELAND Executive Summary The Sunday Times Irish Universities League Table is a relatively basic ranking system,
A measure of research efficiency which compares competitive research funding won in 2007 with the number full-time equivalent academic staff.
Employment. The percentage of graduates known to be seeking employment nine months after graduation. Subtracted from 100 to produce the league table score.
Source: Individual colleges extracted from latest available Higher education Authority (HEA) data. Firsts/2: 1s The percentage of highest quality degrees in 2007.
Student-staff ratio. Full-time and part-time undergraduate students (weighted), divided by full-time equivalent teaching staff. A ratio of 10:1 as a benchmark for excellence, worthy of 100pts in the league table.
Source: Calculated from: Universities HEA 2007 data; institutes 2006 Department of education and Science data. Completion rates.
Teaching staff Full-time equivalent number of staff engaged in teaching. Mature/overseas students Those over 23;
etc. 113 10.11 ITALY Executive Summary In Italy the evaluation of university-based research witnessed two main periods:
and single-blind evaluation of products by independent experts. Members of the disciplinary panels established by CIVR used at least 2 independent opinions from international experts,
and reached a consensus agreement on a final grade to be assigned to each products. Grades were aggregated at department level and then at university level.
Staff and collaboration ca. 14 units. Duration 4 (four) years. First appointment (Minister Berlinguer) in 1999;
Each areas was assigned to a Panel, with a Chairman and a number of experts between 5 and 9 units (151 in total),
mainly from the national scientific community, supported by 6, 661 external experts at international level.
Each product was evaluated by at least two experts. Experts rated products on a four grade scale (Excellent, Good, Acceptable,
Unsatisfactory)( the latter being limited, or limitato in Italian language, a rather ambiguous word). Excellent means top 20%;
while complementary information on human resources, financial resources, other research outcomes, and evaluation practices were submitted by end of September 2004.
In addition, it stated that academic staff not producing scientific publications in the last two or three years will not receive full salary upgrade
20%employment of students after 3 years from graduation; 20%use of internal academic staff for teaching 20%adoption of student satisfaction surveys for the evaluation of teaching activities.
-research (2/3 of total: 50%in proportion to the grade received by the University from CIVR in 2006 30%according to share of EU funding (VI and VII Framework programmes) 20%share of funding from Ministry of Research in competitive grant
Full transparency on methods and mandate to the external experts. Experts classify research outputs according to classes of quality,
departments are ranked according to an aggregation of scores on research outputs. Universities receive a score representing the proportion of departments ranked top. 116 Names of experts are kept secret.
CIVR took into account many criticisms and suggestions. Several meetings and official conferences organized by CIVR together with main PROS,
Great expectations on the newly created Agency (2009). 117 10.12 NETHERLANDS Executive Summary The three main Netherlands organisations responsible for publicly funded research defined a protocol for practical use in all
A reflection on the leadership, strategy and policy of/for the research programme An assessment of the quality of the research staff,(human resources, funding policies and facilities An assessment of the quality and quantity of the publications and of the publication strategies An assessment of the academic
120 10.13 NORWAY Executive Summary A new model for result based university research funding was established in Norway in 2006.
Despite arguments to the contrary, unintended consequences may be incentives to prioritize certain science fields over others because of the differences in the way the design of the GUF model works for different science fields.
and potentially important for research policy within the EU. 122 10.14 SPAIN Executive Summary The research outputs of university teachers in terms of publications are evaluated on a voluntary basis every six years.
and for every field there is a Committee of six to eight experts from different areas within the field.
however, the members of the Committees work within wide margins when making their decisions. The information on the number of sexenia every individual has is not publicly available,
124 10.15 SWEDEN Executive Summary A new model for allocation of university block grants was established in Sweden in the Governmental Research Bill in 2008.
Unintended consequences may be incentives to prioritize certain science fields over others because of the differences in the way the design of the GUF model works for different science fields.
or in terms of its benefits for society and industry. 127 10.16 UNITED KINGDOM Executive Summary Since 1986 the UK national funding bodies have evaluated the quality of research in UK universities through peer review
The fifth exercise in 2001 considered the work of almost 50,000 researchers in 2, 598 submissions from 173 higher education institutions.
and it will fully drive research funding for all disciplines from 2014.129 10.17 GLOBAL-WEBOMETRICS Executive Summary Webometrics,
and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.
133 http://www. webometrics. info/disclaimer. html 134 10.18 GLOBAL-ACADEMIC RANKING OF WORLD UNIVERSITIES (ARWU) Executive Summary The Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU), first published in 2003 and updated annually by the Institute
ARWU uses several comparative and seemingly objective indicators of academic or research performance, including alumni and staff winning Nobel prizes and fields medals,
Given the expansive range of stakeholders in higher education, including students and their families, academic staff, institutions, governments,
such as the academic and research performance of faculty, alumni, and staff. The measures evaluated include publications, citations,
or research performance, including alumni and staff winning Nobel prizes and field medals, highly cited researchers,
Staff of an institution winning Nobel prizes and field medals Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories Award Hici 20%20%Research Output Articles published in Nature
Instead, the ARWU ranking focuses specifically on the academic outputs (scholarly works and awards for high quality scholarship and research.
and the scholarly capacity of academic staff works toward giving ARWU a relatively solid level of credibility among a broad array of higher education stakeholders, in particular, researchers and policymakers.
RANKING Executive Summary In November 2004, the Times Higher education Supplement published its first World University ranking (WUR), a listing of the top 200 institutions across the globe.
Using subjective inputs peer reviews from academics and employers and quantitative data, such as the numbers of international students and faculty,
the WUR intends to meet the needs of consumers (students, academic staff, researchers, policy makers) seeking reliable information about universities around the world.
and global presence, with the quality of each determined by a combination of qualitative, subjective inputs peer reviews from academics and employers and quantitative data,
6, 354 responses in 2008.40%Employer Review Score based on responses to employer survey. 2, 339 responses in 2008.10%Faculty Student Ratio Score based on student faculty ratio 20%Citations per Faculty Score based on research performance factored against the size of the research
this potential conflict of interest seems as valid today as 139 a few years ago, at the time these rankings first really appeared.
140 10.20 GLOBAL-PERFORMANCE RANKING OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS FOR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Executive Summary First published online in 2007, the Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for Research
Instead, PRSP tracks the academic outputs to provide some comparative data on the work produced by institutions and its utility to the community outside its campus. Policy Objective (s:‘
PRSP staff researchers identify manually the actual number of articles and citations within the SCI/SSCI to identify those produced by each individual campus. This staff-intensive approach is used also to ensure the‘highly cited ESI'calculations are representative of overall institutional quality and not an outlier.
Dissemination, incl. how much information is available regarding data and methods: Dissemination is through the website,
http://210.71.47.3/ranking/Engmethod. htm http://ranking. heeact. edu. tw/en-us/2008/Page/Methodology 143 10.21 GLOBAL THE LEIDEN RANKING Executive
The work focuses on all universities worldwide with more than 700 Web of Science indexed publications per year.
More Research and Innovation Investing for Growth and Employment; A Common Approach, COM (2005) 488 final.
The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Chaired by Wim Kok. Retrieved 28 july 2009, from http://ec. europa. eu/growthandjobs/pdf/kok report en. pdf Other Publications Canibano, L.,Sánchez, M. P.,García-Ayuso, M
/European commission EUR 24187 Assessing Europe's University-Based Research-Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research Luxembourg:
In 2008, the European commission, DG Research set up the Expert Group on Assessment of University-Based Research to identify the framework for a new
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011