IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vuw/vuwcpf/21104.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Buckle, Robert A.
  • Creedy, John
  • Ball, Ashley

Abstract

Performance-based research funding systems (PBRFS) have been introduced in many countries for allocating funding to research institutions. There continues to be considerable debate about the effectiveness and consequences of these systems. This paper provides a new approach to this debate. It utilises longitudinal researcher data available from the New Zealand PBRFS, which assesses institutional performance and allocates funds based on individual researcher performance. The longitudinal data enable identification of entry, exit and quality transformation of researchers and the contribution of these dynamics to changes in university and discipline research quality, in a manner similar to Schumpeter’s description of the impact of firm dynamics on productivity and economic growth, in terms of a ‘gale of creative destruction’. The approach enables a deeper understanding of individual and institutional responses to PBRFSs, the sustainability of changes, and the contributions of changes in researcher quality and discipline composition to changes in institutional performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 21104, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwcpf:21104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/21104
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:clg:wpaper:2009-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jane Broadbent, 2010. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(1), pages 14-23, March.
    3. Katharine Barker, 2007. "The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 3-12, March.
    4. David L. Anderson & Warren Smart & John Tressler, 2013. "Evaluating research -- peer review team assessment and journal based bibliographic measures: New Zealand PBRF research output scores in 2006," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 140-157, August.
    5. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    6. Alessio Ancaiani & Alberto F. Anfossi & Anna Barbara & Sergio Benedetto & Brigida Blasi & Valentina Carletti & Tindaro Cicero & Alberto Ciolfi & Filippo Costa & Giovanna Colizza & Marco Costantini & F, 2015. "Evaluating scientific research in Italy: The 2004–10 research evaluation exercise," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 242-255.
    7. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    8. Ehrenberg, Ronald & Kasper, Hirschel & Rees, Daniel, 1991. "Faculty turnover at American colleges and universities: Analyses of AAUP data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 99-110, June.
    9. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    10. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    11. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2020. "The ‘disciplinary effect’ of the performance-based research fund process in New Zealand," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 107-126, May.
    12. Anthony Shorrocks, 2013. "Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(1), pages 99-126, March.
    13. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2020. "Is external research assessment associated with convergence or divergence of research quality across universities and disciplines? Evidence from the PBRF process in New Zealand," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(36), pages 3919-3932, July.
    14. A. Abigail Payne & Joanne Roberts, 2010. "Government Oversight of Public Universities: Are Centralized Performance Schemes Related to Increased Quantity or Quality?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 207-212, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Peter Woelert & Lachlan McKenzie, 2018. "Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 184-195.
    17. Ben R Martin, 2011. "The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 247-254, September.
    18. Daniele Checchi & Irene Mazzotta & Sandro Momigliano & Francesco Olivanti, 2020. "Convergence or polarisation? The impact of research assessment exercises in the Italian case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1439-1455, August.
    19. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.
    20. Jung Cheol Shin & William K. Cummings, 2010. "Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: research preference, collaboration, and time on research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 581-594, November.
    21. Dag W Aksnes & Randi Elisabeth Taxt, 2004. "Peer reviews and bibliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 33-41, April.
    22. Boyle Glenn, 2008. "Pay Peanuts and Get Monkeys? Evidence from Academia," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2022. "Methods to evaluate institutional responses to performance‐based research funding systems," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 615-634, September.
    2. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    3. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    4. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2022. "Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: evidence from the performance-based research funding system in New Zealand," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3021-3047, June.
    5. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Ashley Ball, 2021. "Fifteen Years of a PBRFS in New Zealand: Incentives and Outcomes," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 208-230, June.
    6. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2022. "Sources of convergence and divergence in university research quality: evidence from the performance-based research funding system in New Zealand," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3021-3047, June.
    7. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2020. "The ‘disciplinary effect’ of the performance-based research fund process in New Zealand," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 107-126, May.
    8. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "When research assessment exercises leave room for opportunistic behavior by the subjects under evaluation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 830-840.
    9. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2020. "Is external research assessment associated with convergence or divergence of research quality across universities and disciplines? Evidence from the PBRF process in New Zealand," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(36), pages 3919-3932, July.
    10. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy, 2020. "The ‘disciplinary effect’ of the performance-based research fund process in New Zealand," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 107-126, May.
    11. Robert A. Buckle & John Creedy & Norman Gemmell, 2020. "Is external research assessment associated with convergence or divergence of research quality across universities and disciplines? Evidence from the PBRF process in New Zealand," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(36), pages 3919-3932, July.
    12. Berlemann, Michael & Haucap, Justus, 2015. "Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1108-1115.
    13. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Iori, Giulia & Maynou, Laia & Tumminello, Michele & Vassallo, Pietro, 2023. "Performance-based research funding: Evidence from the largest natural experiment worldwide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    14. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    15. Selcuk Besir Demir, 2018. "Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2053-2068, September.
    16. Christian Schneijderberg & Nicolai Götze & Lars Müller, 2022. "A study of 25 years of publication outputs in the German academic profession," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 1-28, January.
    17. Ajab Khan & Ali Sina Önder & Sercan Özcan, 2023. "Does Performance-based Public Funding Pay off? UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and Research Productivity," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2023-08, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    18. Domenico A. Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo & Fiorenzo Franceschini, 2020. "Short-term effects of non-competitive funding to single academic researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1261-1280, June.
    19. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    20. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).

    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:vuw:vuwcpf:21104. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Library Technology Services (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fcvuwnz.html .

    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.