How should one evaluate research?

Last Friday, I attended the webinar "Research Evaluation with a Wide Net: Capturing Outputs, Impact and Engagement". (I believe I was the only department chair who attended the webinar.) This event was organised by the Research Evaluation Advisory Committee (REAC), which is a subcommittee of the Quality Board that is charged with supporting the evaluation of research management in the universities and proposing ways that research outputs and impact could be evaluated in the future, in line with international best practices.

That interesting webinar centred on three key questions of current importance to the Icelandic research community: 

  1. How do we characterise research outputs across academic disciplines? 
  2. How can we capture the impact of research beyond academia – on the economy, society, culture, public policy, services, health, the environment or quality of life. 
  3. Can we balance quantitative research metrics and qualitative narratives in evaluating research?

I will try to report on the webinar elsewhere and at a later time.  For the moment, I will limit myself to saying that I was flabbergasted by the misconceptions on eopn access publications aired by the presidents of Icelandic universities. We have some educating to do.

Frank Miedema was one of the international experts who presented their views at the webinar. He is Vice-Rector for Research at Utrecht University and chair of the Utrecht University Open Science Program, as well as former dean and vice chairman of the Executive Board of the University Medical Center Utrecht. 

He suggested that one ask academics how they would like to see their research evaluated. Following up on this suggestion, let me ask you:

  1. Do you think that the Computer Science Promotion Criteria and the way in which we (RU, the department and I) evaluate your research are appropriate?
  2. How would you like to see us evaluate your research?

You can post your answers (anonymously, if you wish) as comments to this post. 

Thanks in advance!

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comments, suggestions and criticisms on the career development/promotion rules for SoT

Hello everyone, In case you prefer to be anonymous when providing comments, suggestions and criticisms on the career development/promotion rules for SoT, you can post them anonymously as comments on this blog post. In the future, I plan to use posts on this blog to give those of you to comment anonymously on our activities and opportunity to do so. Thanks for the good meeting today. Luca
Read more

Call for input on the outcomes of the HR Monitor results March 2022.

I'd be grateful if you could send me your suggestions for improvement, anonymously, as comments to this post. In particular, I am interested in hearing your voice on the following points:  What should our long-term goals be as a department? In which areas, should we improve our standards? What can the department do to empower you in your work, so that you can achieve your potential? What training and development opportunities are you lacking? Thanks in advance!
Read more

Call for elevator pitches: Timetable spring 2021

I'd be grateful if you could post your elevator statements in answer to the following question, as anonymous comments to this post: "How would you organize the teaching of computer science courses at RU in order to maximize the learning experience for students, assuming that we will have restrictions like the one-metre rule in the spring semester 2020?"  It'd be good to have your statements by Friday, 13 November, at 10 AM . (Note the change of date from an earlier version of this call.) Thanks!!
Read more