IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i1p2-14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency

Author

Listed:
  • Tommaso Agasisti
  • Giuseppe Catalano
  • Paolo Landoni
  • Roberto Verganti

Abstract

In this article we investigated whether academic departments do experience a trade-off among different research outputs. More specifically, we define four types of academic research outputs: quantity (publications); quality (citation indexes); research funds obtained through research grants; and applied research funds obtained through external orders. Subsequently, we define a department's performance through the concept of efficiency, namely the ability to maximize academic research output given an amount of inputs (facilities and human resources). Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), we measure efficiency for 69 academic departments (focused on scientific subjects) located in the Lombardy Region (Italy), benefiting from a unique data set containing detailed information on research inputs and outputs. The empirical analysis shows that efficiency rankings change significantly when considering different research-related outputs and thus it highlights different research strategies among the academic departments. These different strategies emerge also considering jointly all four types of outputs: the academic departments focus on different outputs in order to obtain the highest overall efficiency scores. In the last section, policy and managerial implications have been discussed. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Catalano & Paolo Landoni & Roberto Verganti, 2012. "Evaluating the performance of academic departments: an analysis of research-related output efficiency," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 2-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:1:p:2-14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvr001
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:1:p:2-14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.