Performance-based university research funding systems
AbstractThe university research environment has been undergoing profound change in recent decades and performance-based research funding systems (PRFSs) are one of the many novelties introduced. This paper seeks to find general lessons in the accumulated experience with PRFSs that can serve to enrich our understanding of how research policy and innovation systems are evolving. The paper also links the PRFS experience with the public management literature, particularly new public management, and understanding of public sector performance evaluation systems. PRFSs were found to be complex, dynamic systems, balancing peer review and metrics, accommodating differences between fields, and involving lengthy consultation with the academic community and transparency in data and results. Although the importance of PRFSs seems based on their distribution of universities’ research funding, this is something of an illusion, and the literature agrees that it is the competition for prestige created by a PRSF that creates powerful incentives within university systems. The literature suggests that under the right circumstances a PRFS will enhance control by professional elites. PRFSs since they aim for excellence, may compromise other important values such as equity or diversity. They will not serve the goal of enhancing the economic relevance of research.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Research Policy.
Volume (Year): 41 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
RAE; ERA; REF; University; Research; Funding;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
- Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
- Jimenez-Contreras, Evaristo & de Moya Anegon, Felix & Lopez-Cozar, Emilio Delgado, 2003. "The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 123-142, January.
- Luis Sanz-Menéndez, 1995. "Research actors and the state: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 79-88, April.
- Carolyn J. Heinrich & Gerald Marschke, 2010. "Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 183-208.
- Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
- Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2013.
"Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
9724, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," IZA Discussion Papers 7739, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela A. Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," CSEF Working Papers 344, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
- Graziella Bertocchi & Alfonso Gambardella & Tullio Jappelli & Carmela A. Nappi & Franco Peracchi, 2013. "Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy," Center for Economic Research (RECent) 093, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics.
- Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2014. "The Development of Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth (for a while)," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201405, University of Turin.
- Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2014. "The Development of Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth (for a while)"," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201416, University of Turin.
- Dalibor Fiala, 2013. "Science Evaluation in the Czech Republic: The Case of Universities," Societies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(3), pages 266-279, June.
- Janger, Jürgen & Nowotny, Klaus, 2013.
"Career Choices in Academia,"
Working Papers in Economics and Finance
2013-4, University of Salzburg.
- Ruslan Rakhmatullin & Louis Brennan, 2014. "Motivation Behind Researchers’ Participation in Formal Networking Research Projects Funded by the European Union," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 305-329, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.