{"id":19315,"date":"2015-03-01T16:32:00","date_gmt":"2015-03-01T16:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/technopolis-group.com\/getting-what-you-measure-effects-of-performance-based-research-funding-systems\/"},"modified":"2020-04-08T15:21:11","modified_gmt":"2020-04-08T15:21:11","slug":"getting-what-you-measure-effects-of-performance-based-research-funding-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/technopolis-group.com\/de\/getting-what-you-measure-effects-of-performance-based-research-funding-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting what you measure? Effects of performance-based research funding systems"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The \u2018core\u2019 or \u2018institutional\u2019 funding universities receive to do research of their own choosing is being subjected to quality control and competition in a growing number of countries, apparently with significant impact on their behaviour and productivity \u2013 but also with unanticipated negative effects. <\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

During the post-War period, state universities were generally financed through a single block grant. But over time they have additionally been gaining external income from research councils, other government agencies and industry, so the block grant is a declining proportion of their income. Curiously, despite wide variations in the share of total income provided by the part of the block grant dedicated to research (for example Danish universities received 72% block grant funding in 2009, the UK 48% and Ireland 31% according to Eurostat) there is no clear relationship between the share of institutional funding and research performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1986, education ministries have begun to use performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) in awarding institutional funding. In general, they aim to stimulate performance by reallocating resources to the strongest universities and research groups. The UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE \u2013 recently renamed REF) was the first of these, and like other first-generation PRFS it relies heavily on peer review of submissions from the universities. From roughly 2000, more countries adopted a second generation of PRFS, mostly using bibliometric indicators rather than peer review. By that time the cost and difficulty of doing bibliometric analysis had fallen enough to be affordable \u2013 and, indeed to provide a much cheaper solution than peer review. Up to this point, PRFS focused on scientific quality, typically viewed through the lens of scientific publication. But a third generation of PRFS now aims to incorporate aspects that consider the influence of research on innovation and society more widely. Evidence
used ranges from patents through counting innovation March 2015 – N\u00b0 13 3 outputs like prototypes to text descriptions of research impacts in the REF.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key design decisions for PRFS include <\/p>\n\n\n\n