Intraorganisational evaluation: Are there 'least evaluable units'?

Research Evaluation

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 19-32

  Gläser, Jochen ^a   Spurling, Thomas H ^b   Butler, Linda ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442575982     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154404781776554     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. D Anderson, R Johnson and B Milligan (1996), Performance-Based Funding of Universities, Commissioned Report No. 51 (Australian National University, Canberra).
2. J R Cole and S Cole (1972), 'The Ortega hypothesis', Science, 178, pages 368-375.
3. R E de Bruin, A Kint, M Luwel and H F Moed (1993), 'A study of research evaluation and planning: the University of Ghent', Research Evaluation, 3, pages 25-41.
4. J Gläser (2000), 'Limits of change: cognitive constraints on "postmodernization" and the political redirection of science', Social Science Information, 39, pages 439-465.
5. M A Harsanyi (1993), 'Multiple authors, multiple problems - bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration: a literature review', Library Information Science Research, 15, pages 325-354.
6. G Laudel (1999), Interdisziplinäre Forschungskooperation: Erfolgsbedingungen der Institution 'Sonderforschungsbereich' (Edition Sigma, Berlin).
7. S Marginson and M Considine (2000), The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia (Cambridge University Press, UK).
8. H F Moed, J M Burger, J G Frankfort and A F J van Raan (1985), 'The application of bibliometric indicators: important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered', Scientometrics, 8, pages 177-203.
9. A J Nederhof (1988), 'The validity and reliability of evaluation of scholarly performance', in A F J van Raan (editor), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (Elsevier, North-Holland), pages 193-228.
10. A J Nederhof and H F Moed (1993), 'Modeling multinational publication: development of an on-line fractionation approach to measure national scientific output', Scientometrics, 21, pages 313-323.
11. A J Nederhof and A J van Raan (1987), 'Peer review and bibliometric indicators of scientific performance: a comparison of cum laude doctorates with ordinary doctorates in physics', Scientometrics, 11, pages 333-350.
12. OECD (1997), Workshop on the Evaluation of Basic Research (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris).
13. J Ortega y Gasset (1932), The Revolt of the Masses (Norton, New York).
14. H P F Peters and A F J van Raan (1991), 'Structuring scientific activities by co-author analysis: an exercise on a university-faculty level', Scientometrics, 20, pages 235-255.
15. A Schubert, W Galenzel and T Braun (1988), 'Against absolute methods: relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools', in A F J van Raan (editor), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology (Elsevier, North-Holland), pages 137-176.
16. H A Simon (1962), 'The architecture of complexity', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, pages 467-482.
17. D E Stokes (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation (Brookings Institution Press, Washington).
18. A J F van Raan (1996), 'Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises', Scientometrics, 36, pages 397-420.
19. A J F van Raan (2000), 'The Pandora's box of citation analysis: measuring scientific excellence - the last evil?', in B Cronin and H B Atkins (editors), The Web of Knowledge (Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ), pages 301-319.