Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms

Research Evaluation

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 184-195

  Woelert, Peter ^a   McKenzie, Lachlan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b Australian and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)   (Australia)

Author keywords

Coercive isomorphism; Performance based research funding system; Research management; Research policy and governance; University research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85051780719     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: 14715449     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvy018     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aagaard, K. (2015) ‘How Incentives Trickle down: Local Use of a National Bibliometric Indicator System’, Science and Public Policy, 42/5: 725–37.
2. Aagaard, K., and Schneider, J. W. (2017) ‘Some Considerations about Causes and Effects in Studies of Performance-Based Research Funding Systems’, Journal of Informetrics, 11/3: 923–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.018.
3. Auranen, O. et al. (2010) ‘University Research Funding and Publication Performance—An International Comparison’, Research Policy, 39/6: 822–34.
4. Australian Research Council (2011) Ministerial Statement to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee: Improvements to Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA). Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
5. Australian Research Council (2015) State of Australian University Research: Volume 1 ERA National Report. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
6. Beerkens, M. (2013) ‘Facts and Fads in Academic Research Management: The Effect of Management Practices on Research Productivity in Australia’, Research Policy, 42/9: 1679–93.
7. Boxenbaum, E., and Jonsson, S. (2008) ‘Isomorphism, Diffusion and Decoupling’, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., and Suddaby, R. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 78–98. London: Sage Publications.
8. Brandtner, C. (2017) ‘Putting the World in Orders: Plurality in Organizational Evaluation’, Sociological Theory, 35/3: 200–27.
9. Bromley, P., and Powell, W. W. (2012) ‘From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World’, The Academy of Management Annals, 6/1: 483–530.
10. Butler, L. (2003) ‘Explaining Australia’s Increased Share of ISI Publications—The Effects of a Funding Formula Based on Publication Counts’, Research Policy, 32/1: 143–55.
11. Butler, L. (2017) ‘Response to van den Besselaar et al.: What Happens When the Australian Context Is Misunderstood’, Journal of Informetrics, 11/3: 911–22. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.017.
12. Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., and Signori, A. (2016) ‘Performance-Based Funding and University Research Productivity: The Moderating Effect of University Legitimacy’, Journal of Technology Transfer, 41/1: 85–104.
13. Commonwealth of Australia (2016) 2016 Higher Education Research Data Collection: Specifications for the Collection of 2015 Data. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
14. Croucher, G., and Woelert, P. (2016) ‘Institutional Isomorphism and the Creation of the Unified National System of Higher Education in Australia: An Empirical Analysis’, Higher Education, 71/4: 439–53.
15. De Rijcke, S. et al. (2016) ‘Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review’, Research Evaluation, 25/2: 161–9.
16. Department of Education and Training (2015a) Report of the Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrangements. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
17. Department of Education and Training (2015b) 2016 Research Block Grant Allocations. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
18. Department of Education and Training (2016) Finance 2015: Financial Reports of Higher Education Providers. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth of Australia.
19. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48/2: 147–60.
20. Dougherty, K. et al. (2016) Performance Funding for Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
21. Fumasoli, T., and Huisman, J. (2013) ‘Strategic Agency and System Diversity: Conceptualizing Institutional Positioning in Higher Education’, Minerva, 51/2: 155–69.
22. Geuna, A., and Martin, B. R. (2003) ‘University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison’, Minerva, 41/4: 277–304.
23. Geuna, A., and Piolatto, M. (2016) ‘Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and Difficult, but Probably Worth It (at Least for a While)’, Research Policy, 45/1: 260–71.
24. Gläser, J. et al. (2010) ‘The Limits of Universality: How Field-Specific Epistemic Conditions Affect Authority Relations and Their Consequences’, in Whitley, R., Gläser, J., and Engwall, L. (eds) Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, pp. 219–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Good, B. et al. (2015) ‘Counting Quality? The Czech Performance-Based Research Funding System’, Research Evaluation, 24/2: 91–105.
26. Gumport, P. (2000) ‘Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives’, Higher Education, 39/1: 67–91.
27. Hammarfelt, B. et al. (2016) ‘The Heterogeneous Landscape of Bibliometric Indicators: Evaluating Models for Allocating Resources at Swedish Universities’, Research Evaluation, 25/3: 292–305.
28. Hicks, D. (2012) ‘Performance-Based University Research Funding Systems’, Research Policy, 41/2: 251–61.
29. Hicks, D. (2017) ‘What Year? Difficulties in Identifying the Effect of Policy on University Output’, Journal of Informetrics, 11/3: 933–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.020.
30. Jonkers, K., and Zacharewicz, T. (2016) Research Performance Based Funding Systems: A Comparative Assessment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 27837 EN. doi: 10.2791/70120.
31. Krücken, G., and Meier, F. (2006) ‘Turning the University into an Organizational Actor’, in Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., and Hwang, H. (eds) Globalization and Organization. World Society and Organizational Change, pp. 241–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Larkins, F. P. (2011) Australian Higher Education Research Policies and Performance: 1987-2010. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
33. Lepori, B., Usher, J., and Montauti, M. (2012) ‘Budgetary Allocation and Organizational Characteristics of Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Existing Studies and a Framework for Future Research’, Higher Education, 65/1: 59–78.
34. Lewis, J. (2013) Academic Governance: Disciplines and Policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
35. Lewis, J., and Ross, S. (2011) ‘Research Funding Systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy Settings and Perceived Effects’, Policy and Politics, 39/3: 379–98.
36. Martin, B., and Whitley, R. (2010) ‘The UK Research Assessment Exercise: A Case of Regulatory Capture’, in Whitley, R., Gläser, J., and Engwall, L. (eds) Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, pp. 51–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Meyer, J. W., and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83/2: 340–63.
38. Moed, H. F. (2008) ‘UK Research Assessment Exercise: Informed Judgments on Research Quality or Quantity?’, Scientometrics, 74/1: 153–61.
39. Pfeffer, J., and Moore, W. L. (1980) ‘Power in University Budgeting: A Replication and Extension’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 25/4: 637–53.
40. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
41. Streeck, W., and Thelen, K. (2005) ‘Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies’, in Streeck, W., and Thelen, K. (eds) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, pp. 1–39. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
42. Taylor, J. (2001) ‘The Impact of Performance Indicators on the Work of University Academics: Evidence from Australian Universities’, Higher Education Quarterly, 55/1: 42–61.
43. Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., and Lounsbury, M. (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Tolbert, P. S. (1985) ‘Institutional Environments and Resource Dependence: Sources of Administrative Structure in Institutions of Higher Education’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30/1: 1–13.
45. Townley, B. (1997) ‘The Institutional Logic of Performance Appraisal’, Organization Studies, 18/2: 261–85.
46. van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., and Sandström, U. (2017) ‘Perverse Effects of Output-Based Research Funding? Butler’s Australian Case Revisited’, Journal of Informetrics, 11/3: 941–4. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017. 05.016.
47. Whitley, R. (2008) ‘Universities as Strategic Actors: Limitations and Variations’, in Engwall, L., and Weaire, D. (eds) The University in the Market, pp. 23–37. London: Portland Press.
48. Whitley, R. (2011) ‘Changing Governance and Authority Relations in the Public Sciences’, Minerva, 49/4: 359–85.
49. Whitley, R., and Gläser, J. (eds) (2007) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems. Dordrecht: Springer.
50. Wilsdon, J. et al. (2015) The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
51. Woelert, P. (2015) ‘Governing Knowledge: The Formalization Dilemma in the Governance of the Public Sciences’, Minerva, 53/1: 1–19.
52. Woelert, P., and Millar, V. (2013) ‘The “Paradox of Interdisciplinarity” in Australian Research Governance’, Higher Education, 66/6: 755–67.