Measuring research performance during a changing relationship between science and society

Research Evaluation

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 131-143

  Ernø Kjølhede, Erik ^a   Hansson, Finn ^b  

^a The IT company Silkeborg Data   (Denmark)

^b Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959842096     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876544     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Audétat, Marc 2001. Re-thinking science, re-thinking society. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 950-956.
2. Barker, K 2007. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16(1), March, 3-12.
3. Barré, R 2004. S&T indicators for policy making in a changing science-society relationship. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, eds Henk F Moed, Wolfgang Glänzel and Ulrich Schmoch, pp. 115-131. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
4. Beck, Ulrich 1999. World Risk Society. Polity Press, Cambridge.
5. Beck, Ulrich, Scott Lash and Anthony Giddens 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Polity Press, Cambridge.
6. Beck, U, W Bonss and C Lau 2003. The theory of reflexive modernization: problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture and Society, 20(2), 1-33, 159.
7. Boden, Rebecca et al. 2004. Scrutinising Science: the Changing UK Government of Science. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
8. Bourdieu, Pierre 1981. The specificity of the scientific field. In French Sociology. Rupture and Renewal since 1968, ed. Charles C Lemert, pp. 257-292. New York: Columbia University Press.
9. Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean Claude Passeron and Monique de Saint Martin 1994. Academic Discourse. Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power. Polity Press, Cambridge.
10. Brown, John Seely and Paul Duguid 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, special issue on organizational learning: papers in honor of (and by) James G March, 2(1), 40-57.
11. Butler, Linda 2007. Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 565-574.
12. Cave, Martin, Stephen Hanney, Mary Henkel and Maurice Kogan 1997. The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: the Challenge of the Quality Movement, 3rd edn. London: Jessica Kingsley.
13. Chubin, Daryl E and Edward J Hackett 1990. Peerless Science. State University of New York Press.
14. Cicchetti, Dominic 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submission. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
15. Clark, Burton R 1998. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon- Elsevier Science.
16. Cole, Stephen 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214(4523), 881-886.
17. Cole, Stephen 1998. How does peer review work and how can it be improved. Minerva, 36, 176-189.
18. Cozzens, S E 2007. Death by peer review? The impact of resultsoriented management in US research. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences, eds R Whitley and J Gläser, ch. 11, pp 225-242. Dordrecht: Springer Science.
19. Danish Agency for Research and Innovation (Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen) 2009. Den Bibliometriske Forskningsindikator. Available at: http://www.fi.dk/forskningsindikator, last accessed 8 June 2010.
20. Danish Research Policy Council (Danmarks Forskningspolitiske Råd) 2006. Et værktøj til vurdering af forskningens kvalitet og relevans. Copenhagen.
21. Donovan, Claire 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), October, 585-597.
22. Duus, H J and J E Jørgensen 2004. Registrering og Benchmarking af Modus 2 Forskning. Working Paper No. 5, December, Center of Market Economics, Copenhagen Business School.
23. Ernø-Kjølhede, Erik 2001. Managing Collaborative Research: Unveiling the Microdynamics of the European Triple Helix. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag.
24. Etzkowitz, Henry and Loet Leydesdorff 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
25. EC, European Commission 2008. EUR 23326 - Challenging Europe's Research: Rationales for the European Research Area (ERA). Luxembourg. DOI 10.2777/39044.
26. Foss Hansen, Hanne. 2009. Research Evaluation: Methods, Practice and Experience. Copenhagen: Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation. Available at: http://en.fi.dk/research/rearch-evaluation-methods-practice-andexperience/Research%20Evaluation%20Methods-%20Practice-%20and%20Experience.pdf/, last accessed 15 August 2010.
27. Foucault, Michel 1991. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin.
28. Frederiksen, Lars Frode, Finn Hansson and Søren Barlebo Wenneberg 2003. The Agora and the role of research evaluation. Evaluation, 9(2), 149-172.
29. Fujigaki, Y and L Leydesdorff 2000. Quality control and validation boundaries in a triple helix of university-industry-government. Social Science Information, 39, 635-655.
30. Fuller, Steve 2000. The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
31. Funtowicz, Silvio O and Jerome R Ravetz 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
32. Georghiou, L 2007. What lies beneath: avoiding the risk of underevaluation. Science and Public Policy, 34(10), December, 743-752.
33. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Scott Peter Schwartzman and Martin Trow 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
34. Gieryn, Thomas 1994. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, pp. 393-443. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
35. Hansson, Finn 2002. How to evaluate and select new scientific knowledge? Taking the social dimension seriously in the evaluation of research quality. Vest, 15(2-3), 27-52.
36. Hansson, Finn 2010. Dialogue in or with the peer review? Science and Public Policy, 37(4), May, 239-252.
37. HEFCE, Higher Education Funding Council for England 2009. Research Excellence Framework. Second consultation on the assessment and funding of research. September 2009/38. Bristol: HEFCE.
38. Hellström, Tomas and Merle Jacob 2004. Boundary organizations in science: from discourse to construction. Science and Public Policy, 30(4), August, 235-238.
39. Henkel, Mary 1999. The modernisation of research evaluation: the case of the UK. Higher Education, 38, 105-122.
40. Hessels, L K and H van Lente 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740-760.
41. Hessels, L K, H van Lente and R Smits 2009. In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), June, 387-401.
42. Irwin, Alan 1995. Citizen Science: a Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
43. Kline, S and N Rosenberg 1986. An overview of innovation. In The Positive Sum Strategy, eds. R Landau and N Rosenberg. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44. Lamont, Michèle 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
45. Lamont, Michèle, Grégoire Mallard and Joshua Guetzkow 2006. Rules of fairness interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15(1), April, 43-55.
46. Langford, C, J Hall, P Josty, S Matos and A Jacobson 2006. Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35, 1586-1598.
47. Larédo, Philippe 2001. Benchmarking of RTD policies in Europe: 'research collectives' as an entry point for renewed comparative analysis. Science and Public Policy, 28(4), 285-294.
48. Lepori, B, R Barré and G Filiatreau 2008. New perspectives and challenges for the design and production of S&T indicators. Research Evaluation, 17(1), March, 33-44.
49. MacLean, D, R MacIntosh and S Grant 2002. Mode 2 management research. British Journal of Management, 13(3), 189-207.
50. Merton, R K 1968a. The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(2810), 56-63.
51. Merton, Robert K 1968b. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
52. Merton, R K and H Zuckerman 1971. Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. Minerva, 9(1), 66-100.
53. Meyer, M, T Siniläinen and J T Utecht 2003. Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: a study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2), 321-350.
54. Mitev, N and W Venters 2009. Reflexive evaluation of an academic- industry research collaboration: can Mode 2 management research be achieved? Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 733-754.
55. Nature 2010. Do metrics matter? Nature, 465, 17 June
56. Nedeva, Maria and Rebecca Boden 2006. Changing science: the advent of neo-liberalism. Prometheus, 24(3), 269-281.
57. Nightingale, Paul and Alister Scott 2007. Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 543-553.
58. Nonaka, Ikujiro, Ryoko Toyama and Noboru Konno 2000. SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.
59. Nonaka, Ikujiro, Georg von Krogh and Sven Voelpel 2006. Organizational knowledge creation theory: evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.
60. Nowotny, Helga, Michael Gibbons and Peter Scott 2001. Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford.
61. Oancea, Alis, John Furlong and David Bridges 2010. The BERA/ UCET Review of the Impact of RAE 2008 on Educational Research in UK Higher Education Institutions. British Educational Research Association. Available at http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/teacher-education/research/review-of-impacts-of-rae-2008/, last accessed 1 December 2010.
62. Power, Michael 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Power, Michael 2007. Research evaluation in the audit society. In Wissenschaft unter Beobachtung, eds Hildegard Matthies and Dagmar Simon, 24, pp. 15-24. Leviathan Sonderheft.
64. Rogers, J D and B Bozeman 2001. Knowledge value alliances: an alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(1), 23-55.
65. Simpson, B 2004. After the reforms: how have public science research organisations changed? R and D Management, 34(3), 253-266.
66. Stokes, Donald E 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
67. Teknologisk Institut (Danish Technological Institute) 2009. Evaluering af FORSK2015 [RESEARCH2015]. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for videnskab, teknologi og udvikling. THE, Times Higher Education 2010. 11 November, p. 6.
68. Tijssen, R J W 2006. Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35, 1569-1585.
69. Van Aken, J E 2005. Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of modus 2 knowledge production in management. British Journal of Management, 16(1), 19-36.
70. Van den Besselaar, P and L Leydesdorff 2009. Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), October, 273-288.
71. Van Thiel Sandra and Frans L Leeuw 2002. The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 25(3), 267-281.
72. Ware, M 2008, Peer Review in Scholarly Journals: Perspective of the Scholarly Community - an International Study. London: Publishing Research Consortium.
73. Weingart, Peter 2000. From 'Finalization' to 'Mode 2': old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591-613.
74. Wynne, Brian 1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin, pp. 19-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75. Ziman, John 2000. Real Science. What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.