Search

Quality in higher education has been at the top of the political agenda for years, motivating discussion of how to define quality and how standards and assessment can promote quality. However, the literature tends to overlook the processes and practices constituting 'every-day' quality. To improve quality, it is important to know how quality is perceived and enacted by the key stakeholders, namely the students, teachers, administrative staff and managers. Informed by the findings of a survey, this article aims to identify and compare the local practices of quality work at higher education institutions in Denmark. The analysis reveals that students, teachers and managers across sectors to a large extent share views on quality work highlighting practices that help develop students' academic skills, the ability to apply these to practice and the continuous development of teaching practices. Some differences are however also apparent, for example, concerning employability orientation in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality in higher education is – and has been for many years - at the top of the political agenda. The concept of quality has been explored extensively in the literature as has the means to measure and monitor quality. Connected to these two literatures is a widespread and somewhat fragmented literature on what might initially be termed quality work. This article reviews this literature on quality work in higher education. We characterise the work in this field, its main themes, issues and questions, and discuss what this literature has to say on the effects of quality work. Based on a systematic search for the period 2008-2018, we review 68 publications. The review shows that the literature on quality work can be categorised into three major areas: the role of institutional conditions for quality work, types of quality work practices, and notions of quality and quality outcomes. The review demonstrates that there is a need for more inclusive methodologies and longitudinal studies, particularly more rigorous quantitative analysis of the effects of quality work to supplement other methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this article is to contribute to the emerging attempts to foster empirical, quantitative approaches to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and to provide a low-resolution map of the European RRI landscape, which can serve as a vehicle for international learning. The article presents indicators of RRI aimed at characterising countries. It examines the empirical structure of the data collected in the 'Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation' (MoRRI) project and reports patterns across Europe. Factor analysis is applied to identify 11 empirically-anchored dimensions of RRI. Based on indices for these dimensions, cluster analysis reveals four distinct clusters of countries. These results point to diversity regarding the empirically-manifest components of RRI as well as diversity in the RRI profiles of the 28 European Union Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The growing use of performance-based research funding systems has motivated increased interest in how they influence researcher behavior. This article draws both on survey and publication data to examine developments in researcher behavior and publication activity for individual researchers since the implementation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator in 2004. The Publication Indicator is a system for documenting Norwegian academic publishing, with the aim of measuring publication activity and allocating research funding according to the publishing performance. A main feature of the model is that publications are classified at two levels, where higher-level papers are valued more in terms of the model's publication points. Points are then awarded based on the fractional counts. When following the group of researchers that has been active over the entire period, 2004-12, we find that average points per researcher have fallen over the period. However, at the same time, average publication counts and number coauthors per paper have increased substantially. Essentially, productivity in publication counts has increased but productivity in fractional counts has fallen, as has average publication points. While both increased publications and collaboration would appear to be viewed as positive developments from a policy standpoint, the model's point system risks discouraging collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper examines the relation between size, accumulation and performance for research grants, where we examine the relation between grant size for Centres of Excellence (CoE) funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) and various ex post research performance measures, including impact and shares of highly cited articles. We examine both the relation between size and performance and also how performance for CoEs evolves over the course of grant periods. In terms of dynamics, it appears that performance over the grant period (i.e. 10 years) is falling for the largest CoEs, while it is increasing for those among the smallest half. Overall, multivariate econometric analysis finds evidence that performance is increasing in grant size and over time. In both cases, the relation appears to be non-linear, suggesting that there is a point at which performance peaks. The CoEs have also been very successful in securing additional funding, which can be viewed as a ‘cumulative effect’ of center grants. In terms of new personnel, the far majority of additional funding is spent on early career researchers, hence, this accumulation would appear to have a ‘generational’ dimension, allowing for scientific expertise to be passed on to an increasing number of younger researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competitive grant schemes are set up with the intention of improving research performance. It may, however, be difficult to find evidence of the intervention impact of research grants for ex post evaluations of grant schemes. Based on data on applicants to Danish and Norwegian open mode grant schemes--research projects as well as post doc fellowships--this article applies difference in difference analysis to study to what extent research grants are likely to affect the publication and citation rates of the principle investigators (PIs). The results show higher increases in the number of publications for grant recipients than for rejected applicants, while increases in mean normalized citation rates were not significantly higher for the successful applicants. In other words, the grants seem to have increased productivity, e.g. by helping PIs to add staff to their research teams, but not to have influenced the importance of the research as measured by average citations. However, along with increases in the number of publications also came a greater increase in the number of highly cited papers for grant recipients than for rejected applicants. In sum, the analyses indicate that the measurement of grant impact is sensitive to how research performance is defined and tested using bibliometric indicators. Furthermore, the applicants' complex landscape of multiple projects and grants makes it difficult to isolate the output of a single grant. Hence, using bibliometrics to measure the impact of smaller grant schemes and smaller grants may often yield inconclusive results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of PhDs produced each year has increased greatly in OECD and many other countries. Arguments that increased educational stocks can benefit national competitiveness, productivity growth, and welfare are used to support the increased supply of doctorate holders in higher education. At the same time it is also clear that a growing number of doctorate holders will need to find employment outside the Higher Education sector. However, it is less clear what processes drive the resulting choice of sector and occupation. Key questions here are to what extent push factors such as labor market conditions influence sector choice and what pull factors lie behind self-selection into sectors. This article shows that the doctorate holders' mobility toward other nonuniversity sectors are determined by individual specific characteristics and scientific field (pull factors) but may also be influenced by push factors such as the supply of PhDs and the number of new academic positions within their field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a growing use of performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) as a policy tool. With the introduction of the Publication Indicator in 2004, Norway joined this international trend in which the allocation of basic funds is increasingly linked to performance indicators. The purpose of this article is to present and discuss the main results of a recent evaluation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator, which examines the Indicator's impact on publishing patterns, its properties, and how it has functioned in practice. This includes both a broad range of potential effects such as the Indicator's impact on the quantity and the quality of publications, Norwegian language publishing, and length of articles and monographs. It also includes an examination of properties such as the Indicator's legitimacy and transparency, how it functions as a measure of research performance across different fields, its use as a management tool, and how the system is organized and administrated in practice. In examining these questions, the article draws on a number of different data sources, including large-scale surveys of both researchers and research managers, multilevel case studies, and bibliometric analysis. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of the analysis both for further development of the Norwegian Model and for PRFS in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the role of grant size in research funding. There is an increasing focus in a number of countries on larger grant forms, such as centers of excellence, and in some cases also increases in the size of individual project grants. Among the rationales for this are economies of scale in research and redistribution of resources towards top researchers in order to increases scientific productivity and pathbreaking research. However, there may potentially also be negative impacts of increasing funding size, and there is limited empirical evidence on the actual consequences of increases in size. In this paper we critically examine the rationales behind increases in funding size and the empirical evidence on the impacts of size in research funding. Our goal here is to present a more coherent view of the potential impacts of these initiatives, both positive and negative, that can help inform funding design. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The role of competitive funds as a source of funding for academic research has increased in many countries. For the individual researcher, the receipt of a grant can influence both scientific production and career paths. This paper focuses on the importance of the receipt of a research grant for researchers' academic career paths utilizing a mixed methods approach that combines econometric analysis with in-depth qualitative interviews. The analysis has novel elements both in terms of its subject (impact of funding grants on individuals' academic career paths) and approach. The results of this study indicate that while research grants have a positive impact on the research performed under the grant itself, there are very important secondary effects on research performance through positive effects on academic career advancement. The probability of obtaining a full professorship for grant recipients is almost double that for rejected applicants, 16 percent compared to 9 percent. The probability for career advancement in general is about 9 percentage points higher for grant recipients. Qualitative interviews support these quantitative results by providing insights into how grants impact research careers, through heightened status, recognition, networking and other factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We develop a framework and indicators for measuring innovation in the public sector. [•] Public sector innovation is compared with innovation in the private sector. [•] Key differences are in objectives, autonomy and interfaces with other actors. [•] Public sector is an active developer of innovations, though many are incremental. [•] We identify key challenges in conceptualising innovation and survey methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces a special section of Science and Public Policy on science in society in Europe. Based on extensive data collected for the Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS) project, contributions to this special section explore pertinent issues related to the location, role and responsibility of science across EU member states and associated countries. By developing analytical typologies and classifying countries, the collection of papers provides a novel and detailed picture of Europe. It reveals considerable variation regarding the interactions of science and society at the national level, and it offers a platform for international learning. The identification of patterns and trends concerning the place of science in society may also feed into emerging European discussions about 'responsible research and innovation'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In search of differences and similarities in relation to the role and location of science in European societies, we use empirical information from 37 countries as a platform for developing typologies concerning dimensions of science in society. These capture clusters of countries and reveal significant heterogeneity across Europe, providing a point of departure for international learning, while also demonstrating the challenges that the European institutions face in their promotion of a European Research Area, shared priorities and a common model of science in society. Combining national-level and individual-level data, we further show a connection between national differences and the public's satisfaction with their own role as participants in science and technology. In countries where science communication culture is weak, where science plays a minor role in policy-making, and where institutions and procedures for public involvement are weak, citizens are comparatively less contented with their own involvement in science and technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to suggest a framework for examining the way national policy mixes are responding to the challenges and opportunities of globally distributed knowledge networks, crosssectoral technology flows and consequently open innovation processes occurring on an international scale. We argue that the purpose of public research and innovation policy remains one of developing and sustaining territorial knowledge bases capable of growing and supporting internationally competitive industries. But the rules of the game have changed. Public policy now needs to carefully balance between: a) promoting the formation of international linkages for knowledge sourcing and information exposure; b) providing incentives for domestic industry intramural R&D for building absorptive capacity and knowledge accumulation; and c) sustaining domestic networking to allow accumulated knowledge to diffuse and recombine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses developments in innovation measurement that have been incorporated into the recent revision of the Oslo Manual. Among the most central points emphasized in recent innovation literature are a need for: data that is adequate for the analysis of innovation systems and for policy-making; and a suitable measurement framework to capture the substantial innovation activity within services. The new measurement framework, which includes an expansion of the innovation concept beyond technological product and process innovation and a more complete treatment of linkages and knowledge flows, provides greater coverage of these topics. However, while these changes are a significant step forward in innovation measurement, there are a number of areas in which survey guidelines can be improved further, among them human resource development and the role of demand in innovation. The paper discusses some options for building on these changes in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of science as a stratified system is clearly manifested in the markedly uneven distribution of productivity, rewards, resources, and recognition. Although previous studies have shown that institutional environments for conducting research differ significantly between national science systems, disciplines, and subfields, it remains to be shown whether any systematic variations and patterns in inequalities exist among researchers in different national and domain specific settings. This study investigates the positioning of citation elites as opposed to ‘ordinary’ researchers by way of examining three dimensions of concentration (accumulation of publications and citations, specialisation, and institutional concentration) in biology, economics and physics in Denmark and the UK. Across all three dimensions, we put Richard Whitley’s bipartite theory to the test, suggesting a nexus between the intellectual structure of a discipline and the configuration of its elite. The study draws on a dataset of researchers who published most of their publications in either physics, biology, or economics over the 1980–2018 period and with at least one publication in 2017–2018 while affiliated to either a British or a Danish university. We find higher degrees of concentration in the UK compared to Denmark, and that physics and biology respectively display the greatest and lowest degree of concentration. Similar patterns in disciplinary differences are observed in both countries, suggesting that concentration patterns are largely rooted in disciplinary cultures and merely amplified by the national context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emphasis on competitiveness and the knowledge-based economy in European policymaking has resulted in a heightened focus on monitoring and steering the science system, particularly through metric-based instruments. Policymakers' general aims of fostering excellent research and breakthroughs are shared by researchers as well; however, below the surface is a paradox that is rarely discussed. The political system and the science system understand and pursue these concepts and objectives differently. Through two case studies on high-performing university-based research environments in Denmark and Sweden, this article uncovers the ways in which highly successful researchers often behave in ways that run counter to policy steering attempts. They do this by shielding themselves and their research group from steering pressures originating in the political system. Using Luhmann's systems theory, the cases demonstrate why the relationship between the science system and the political system needs to be understood as a horizontal rather than a vertical relationship, and using concepts from organizational theory, provides a model and terminology for identifying and analyzing the types of mechanisms and strategic responses that the science system uses to shield itself from political steering pressures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experiences from Australia where undifferentiated publication counts were linked to funding of universities in 1993 is well known. Publication activity increased, but the largest increase was in lower-impact journals, leading to a general drop in overall citation impact for Australia. The experience from Australia has been a warning for what would most likely happen if funding were linked to publication activity. Nevertheless, in 2005, a performance-based model based on differentiated publication counts was implemented in Norway. Themodel was specifically developed to counter adverse effects like those identified in the Australian case. In the present article, we examine 'what happens at the aggregated level of publication and citation activity when funding is linked to differentiated publication counts'. We examine developments in Norwegian publication activity, journal publication profiles, and citation impact. We also examine developments in publication activities at the individual level and developments in research and development resource inputs. We compare experiences in Australia to those in Norway. The results show that for the Norwegian case, overall publication activity goes up, impact remains stable, and there is no indication of a deliberate displacement of journal publication activities to the lowest-impact journals. Hence, we do not see the same patterns as in Australia. We conclude that the experience in Norway with differentiated publication counts linked to funding has been different from the experience in Australia with an undifferentiated model. This is an important observation because currently the Norwegian model is being or has been adopted in several European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]