Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model(1)

doi:10.2478/jdis-2018-0018

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: The main goal of this study is to outline and analyze the Danish adoption and translation of the Norwegian Publication Indicator.

Design/methodology/approach: The study takes the form of a policy analysis mainly drawing on document analysis of policy papers, previously published studies and grey literature.Findings: The study highlights a number of crucial factors that relate both to the Danish process and to the final Danish result underscoring that the Danish BFI model is indeed a quite different system than its Norwegian counterpart. One consequence of these process- and design differences is the fact that the broader legitimacy of the Danish BFI today appears to be quite poor.

Reasons for this include: unclear and shifting objectives throughout the process; limited willingness to take ownership of the model among stakeholders; lack of communication throughout the implementation process and an apparent underestimation of the challenges associated with the use of bibliometric indicators.

Research limitation: The conclusions of the study are based on the authors’ interpretation of a long drawn and complex process with many different stakeholders involved. The format of this article does not allow for a detailed documentation of all elements, but further details can be provided upon request.

Practical implications: The analysis may feed into current policy discussions on the future of the Danish BFI.Originality/value: Some elements of the present analysis have previously been published in Danish outlets, but this article represents the first publication on this issue targeting a broader international audience.

Key words: Norwegian Model, Performance based funding, Bibliometrics

Kaare, Aagaard. "Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model⁽¹⁾." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.3, no.4, 2018, pp.20-30. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2018-0018

References

[1]	Aagaard K. (2011). Kampen om basismidlerne historisk institutionel analyse af basisbevillingsmodellens udvikling p? universitetsomr?det i danmark.
[2]	Aagaard K. (2016). Manglende debat om stigende pr?stationsbaseret finansiering af dansk forskning.
[3]	Aagaard K. (2017). The evolution of a national research funding system: Transformative change through layering and displacement. Minerva, 55(6), 1-19.
[4]	Butler L. (2010). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: A review of the concerns and the evidence. Sourceoecd Education & Skills, 41,118-156(39). doi: 10.1787/9789264094611-7-en.
[5]	CBS AAU, & RUC (2008). Vedr?rende fordeling af basismidler til universiteterne. Brev fra CBS, AAU og RUC til videnskabsministeren d. 10. Oktober 2008.
[6]	Danske Universiteter (2010). Bibliometrien skal v?re hovedomr?deneutral. Notat.
[7]	DTU KU, & AU (2008). Brev til videnskabsministeren vedr. fordelingskriterier. 30. september 2008.
[8]	Forsknings-og Innovationsstyrelsen (2009). Samlet notat om den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Notat 22/10-2009, Forsknings-og Innovationsstyrelsen.
[9]	Gl?ser ,J. &Laudel G. (2007). The Social Construction of Bibliometric Evaluations. I: R. Whitley & J. Gla?ser (red.) The Changing Governance of the Sciences . doi:10.1007/978-1-40206746-4_5.
[10]	Hansen L. (2009). Hvorfor er en humanistisk artikel mere v?rd end en sundhedsvidenskabelig? indl?g d. 12/10 -2009 p? bloggen: Forskningsfrihed?
[11]	Hansen L. (2011). CBS g?r det godt i konkurrencen om forskningsmidler. Indl?g d. 25/1 - 2011 i CBS Observer.
[12]	Hicks D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research policy, 41(2), 251-261.
[13]	Regeringen (2005). Offentlig forskning - mere konkurrence og bedre kvalitet. Baggrundsnotat til Globaliseringsr?dets dr?ftelse p? m?det d. 8.-9. december 2005. Regeringen.
[14]	Regeringen (2006). Fremgang, fornyelse, tryghed. Regeringens Globaliseringsstrategi.
[15]	Schneider , J.W.,&;Aagaard, K. (2012). Stor st?hej for ingenting - den danske bibliometriske indikator. I K. Aagaard, & N. Mejlgaard (red.), Dansk forskningspolitik efter ?rtusindskiftet (s. 229-260). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
[16]	Sivertsen G. (2008) “Experiences with a bibliometric model for performance based funding of research institutions”. I: J. Goriaz & E. Schiebel (red.) Book of abstracts, 10th international science and technology indicators conference, 17-20 September 2008,University of Vienna, pp. 126-128.
[17]	VTU (2007a). Definition og indsamling af indikatorer til ny kvalitetsfinansieringsmodel for basismidler.Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen, 30. November 2007.
[18]	VTU (2007b).Gennemgang af uddannelsesindikatorer til brug for fordeling af universiteternes basismidler. Notat.18. April 2007. Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen.
[19]	VTU (2007c). Gennemgang af videnspedningsindikatorer til brug for fordeling af universiteternes basismidler. Notat 27. April 2007. Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen.
[20]	VTU (2007d). Udkast til en model for fordeling af basismidler efter kvalitet.11. September 2007. Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen.
[21]	VTU (2008a).Udkast til en model for fordeling af basismidler efter kvalitet. Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen, 2. januar 2008.
[22]	VTU (2008b).Model til fordeling af basismidler. Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen, 23.January 2008.
[23]	VTU (2008c).Notat om basismidler efter resultater.Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen, 14. April 2008.
[24]	VTU (2008d).Basismidler efter resultater.Universitets - og Bygningsstyrelsen, 25. April 2008.
[25]	VTU (2009). Aftale om basismidler efter resultat. Aftale mellem regeringen, Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti og Det Radikale Venstre om en ny model for fordeling af basismidler, Juni 2009.

Performance-based Research Funding in Denmark: The Adoption and Translation of the Norwegian Model⁽¹⁾

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Janne Pölönen, Björn Hammarfelt. Historical Bibliometrics Using Google Scholar: The Case of Roman Law, 1727-2016 [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2020, 5(3): 18-32.
[2]	Yves Fassin. The Compound F²-index and the Compound H-index as Extension of the f² and h-indexes from a Dynamic Perspective ^① [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2020, 5(3): 71-83.
[3]	Lawrence Smolinsky, Aaron J Lercher. Co-author Weighting in Bibliometric Methodology and Subfields of a Scientific Discipline [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2020, 5(3): 84-96.
[4]	Carlos Luis González-Valiente, Magda León Santos, Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge. Evolution of the Socio-cognitive Structure of Knowledge Management (1986-2015): An Author Co-citation Analysis [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2019, 4(2): 36-55.
[5]	Gunnar Sivertsen. The Norwegian Model in Norway [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 3-19.
[6]	Janne Pölönen. Applications of, and Experiences with, the Norwegian Model in Finland [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 31-44.
[7]	Tim C. E. Engels, Raf Guns. The Flemish Performance-based Research Funding System: A Unique Variant of the Norwegian Model [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 45-60.
[8]	Liam Cleere, Lai Ma. A Local Adaptation in an Output-Based Research Support Scheme (OBRSS) at University College Dublin [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 74-84.
[9]	Björn Hammarfelt. Taking Comfort in Points: The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 85-95.
[10]	Emanuel Kulczycki, Przemysław Korytkowski. Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(4): 61-73.
[11]	Ting Yue, Liying Yang, Per Ahlgren, Jielan Ding, Shuangqing Shi, Rainer Frietsch. A Comparison of Citation Disciplinary Structure in Science between the G7 Countries and the BRICS Countries [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(3): 14-31.
[12]	Jose A. Moral-Munoz, Manuel Arroyo-Morales, Barbara F. Piper, Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas, Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez, William C.S. Cho, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Manuel J. Cobo . Thematic Trends in Complementary and Alternative Medicine Applied in Cancer-Related Symptoms [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(2): 1-19.
[13]	Garner Jon,L. Porter Alan,Leidolf Andreas,Baker Michelle. Measuring and Visualizing Research Collaboration and Productivity [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2018, 3(1): 54-81.
[14]	Stephen Carley, Alan L. Porter, Ismael Rafols, Loet Leydesdorff. Visualization of Disciplinary Profiles: Enhanced Science Overlay Maps [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(3): 68-111.
[15]	Frederik T. Verleysen, Arie Weeren. Mapping Diversity of Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Approach Making Use of Fuzzy Cluster Analysis [J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2016, 1(4): 33-59.