Evaluation Without Evaluators

The Impact of Funding Formulae on Australian University Research
  • Jochen GläSer
  • Grit Laudel
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 26)

Abstract

The Australian research evaluation system (RES) is unique in its exclusive reliance on a funding formula. For each university, statistics on income from competitive research grants, numbers of publications, numbers of current research students (Masters and PhD students), and timely completions of Masters and PhD studies are collected and used to calculate the allocation of state funds without any further consideration.

Keywords

Cage Recombination Income Sandstone Stratification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ARC [Australian Research Council] (2005), Australian Research Council Report 2004-2005, Canberra: Australian Research Council, http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/annual_report_04-05.pdf (accessed 18 August 2006).
  2. AVCC [Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee] (2005), Key Statistics on Higher Education, http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/stats/2005Edition.pdf (accessed 18. August 2006).
  3. Benkler, Yochai (2002), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112, 369-446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böhme, Gernot, Wolfgang van den Daele, Rainer Hohlfeld, Wolfgang Krohn and Wolf Schäfer (1983), Finalization in Science. The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Böhme, Gernot, Wolfgang van den Daele and Wolfgang Krohn (1973), ‘Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 2, 128-144.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, Dietmar (1993), ‘Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making’, Journal of Public Policy, 13, 135-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, Dietmar (1998), ‘The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science’, Research Policy, 27, 807-821.Google Scholar
  8. Chubin, Daryl E. and Terence Connolly (1982), ‘Research Trails and Science Policies’ in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley (eds.), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 293-311.Google Scholar
  9. DEST [Department of Education, Science, and Training] (2005a), Australian Science and Technology at a glance 2005, Canberra: Department of Education, Science, and Training, http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/841985DC-E046-4E82-B07D-478E70D0A5A2/8649/at_a_glance_2006i.pdf (accessed 18 August 2006)Google Scholar
  10. DEST [Department of Education, Science, and Training] (2005b), Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs) under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS), Canberra: Department of Education, Science, and Training, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/programmes_funding/programme_categories/professional_skills/hewrrs/ (accessed 18 August 2006).
  11. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1991 [1983]), ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 147-160.Google Scholar
  12. Gläser, Jochen (2006), Wissenschaftlich Produktionsgemeinschaften. Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung, Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  13. Gläser, Jochen and Grit Laudel (2006), Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen, second edition, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  14. Gläser, Jochen, Grit Laudel, Sybille Hinze and Linda Butler (2002), Impact of evaluation-based funding on the production of scientific knowledge: What to worry about, and how to find out, Report to the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research, http://www.sciencepolicystudies.de/dok/expertise-glae-lau-hin-but.pdf (accessed 3 November 2006).
  15. Guston, David H. (1996), ‘Principal-Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy’, Science and Public Policy, 23, 229-240.Google Scholar
  16. Hedström, Peter (2005), Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp, David A. (1999), Knowledge and Innovation: A policy statement on research and research training, Canberra: Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/whitepaper/report.pdf (accessed 3 August 2006).
  18. Kleinman, Daniel Lee (1998), ‘Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 23, 285-314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1995), ‘Laboratory Studies. The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science’, in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, London: SAGE, pp. 140-166.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1986 [1979]), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Laudel, Grit (2006), ‘The art of getting funded: How Scientists adapt to their funding conditions’, Science and Public Policy, 33, 489-504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch, Michael (1985), Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  24. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1984), ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, The American Political Science Review, 78, 734-749.Google Scholar
  25. Marginson, Simon (2006), ‘Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education’, Higher Education, 52, 1-39.Google Scholar
  26. Marginson, Simon and Mark Considine (2000), The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mayntz, Renate (2004), ‘Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 237-259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayntz, Renate, and Fritz W. Scharpf (1995) ‘Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus’ in Renate Mayntz and Fritz W. Scharpf (eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, pp. 39-72.Google Scholar
  29. Mayntz, Renate, and Uwe Schimank (1998), ‘Linking theory and practice: Introduction’, Research Policy, 27, 747-755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merton, Robert K. (1968), ‘On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range’ in Robert K. Merton (ed.) Social Theory and Social Structure, London: The Free Press, pp. 39-72.Google Scholar
  31. Morris, Norma (2000), ‘Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher’, Minerva, 38, 425-451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagi, Saad Z. and Ronald G. Corwin (1972) ‘The Research Enterprise: An Overview’ in Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin (eds.) The Social context of Research. London: Wiley, pp. 1-27.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, Brendan (2005), Higher Education Report 2004-05, Canberra: Minister for Education, Science and Training, http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/highered_annual_report_2004_05.htm (accessed 8 August 2006).
  34. North, Douglass C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Polanyi, Michael (1962), ‘The Republic of Science’, in Edward Shils (ed.), Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1-20.Google Scholar
  36. Powell, Walter W. and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.) (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rip, Arie (1982), ‘The Development of Restrictedness in the Sciences’, in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley (eds.), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 219-238.Google Scholar
  38. Rip, Arie (1994), ‘The Republic of Science in the 1990s’, Higher Education, 28, 3-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruivo, Beatriz (1994), ‘'Phases' or 'paradigms' of science policy?’, Science and Public Policy, 21, 157-164.Google Scholar
  40. Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997), Games Real Actors Play. Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schmidt, Marion, Jochen Gläser, Frank Havemann and Michael Heinz (2006), ‘A Methodological Study for Measuring the Diversity of Science’, in Jean-Charles Lamirel, Claire Francois and Hildrun Kretschmer (eds.), Proceedings International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting, Nancy (France).Google Scholar
  42. Scott, W. Richard (1991), ‘Unpacking Institutional Arguments’, in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 164-182.Google Scholar
  43. Silvani, Alberto, Giorgio Sirilli and Fabrizio Tuzi (2005), ‘R&D Evaluation in Italy: more needs to be done’, Research Evaluation, 14, 207-215.Google Scholar
  44. Van der Meulen, Barend (1998), ‘Science policies as principal-agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science’, Research Policy, 27, 397-414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van der Meulen, Barend and Loet Leydesdorff (1991), ‘Has the Study of Philosophy at Dutch Universities Changed under Economic and Political Pressures?’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16, 288-321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitley, Richard (1972), ‘Black Boxism and the Sociology of Science: A Discussion of the Major Developments in the Field’, in Paul Halmos (ed.), The Sociology of Science, Sociological Review Monograph 18, Keele: University of Keele, pp. 61-92.Google Scholar
  47. Whitley, Richard (1977), ‘Changes in the Social and Intellectual Organisation of the Sciences: Professionalisation and the Arithmetic Ideal’, in Everett Mendelsohn, Peter Weingart and Richard Whitley (eds.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 143-169.Google Scholar
  48. Whitley, Richard (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen GläSer
    • 1
  • Grit Laudel
    • 1
  1. 1.Research School of Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations