IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025ip276-304..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research evaluation in Brazil and the Netherlands: a comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • André Brasil
  • Joviles Vitório Trevisol

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative study between the Brazilian and Dutch national evaluation systems of research and graduate education. Science systems can be as distinct as the social-economic circumstances, established governance, and cultural realities of each country, and both evaluation systems under analysis were developed from very different conceptions of assessment, university autonomy, and governance of higher education, science, and technology. From the study of policy and guiding documents, connected legislation, and related literature, we compare the design of the science system in each country, examining their impact on the adopted evaluation models. For that, we adapt established comparison frameworks and focus the analyses on influential aspects for each system, such as the links between evaluation and funding, or the consequential effect the results can have on researchers’ behaviour. While Brazil has lately sought inspiration from the long-standing and stable Dutch evaluation—which is recognized as a critical factor in the country’s quality assurance—the Latin American country has already developed one of the most sophisticated performance-based evaluation systems worldwide. Thus, we conclude by highlighting the risk of replicating international evaluation experiences without considering the local contexts. However, we consider that the differences and similarities unearthed in our study can inspire both nations, potentially inspiring methods and approaches from each evaluation system so that those lessons could lead to positive change for both countries.

Suggested Citation

  • André Brasil & Joviles Vitório Trevisol, 2025. "Research evaluation in Brazil and the Netherlands: a comparative study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 276-304.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:276-304.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf013
    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.

    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:34:y:2025:i::p:276-304.. 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.