IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201416.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Development of Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth (for a while)"

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of the development of the UK and Italian university research funding systems with special focus on research assessment and its costs. Much of the debate surrounding the value of research assessment and allocation systems hinges on the disadvantages of implementation versus benefits, while there is very little evidence either on its absolute cost or on the cost relative to other allocation systems. Our objective has been to put together the best possible estimates of these costs to inform the ongoing debate. As the experience of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the UK clearly shows, performance - based research funding is neither easy to develop, nor to implement and it is not readily accepted by the academic community. The Italian research assessment was inspired by the UK RAE and it has benefited from that experience. However, also in the Italian case its implementation was marred by problems and it was resisted by part of the academic community. The potential efficiency gains from research assessment - based allocation system dependon the concentration level and on the reliance on other competitive systems for research funding. The UK and Italy are in opposite situations. For the former further increase in the use of selective systems might well result in minimal benefits that do not cover the additional costs, while for the latter there are quite some margins for efficiency improvements and therefore the benefits gained through selective systems can outweigh the costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2014. "The Development of Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth (for a while)"," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201416, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2014dip/wp_16_2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aldo Geuna, 2001. "The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 607-632, September.
    2. Aldo Geuna, 1999. "The Economics of Knowledge Production," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1689, March.
    3. Paula Stephan, 2014. "The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed?," NBER Chapters, in: The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy, pages 321-366, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    5. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Léopold Simar, 2006. "Advanced indicators of productivity of universitiesAn application of robust nonparametric methods to Italian data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 389-410, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2016. "Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 260-271.
    2. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    3. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    4. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    5. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Geuna, Aldo & Lepori, Benedetto & Bach, Laurent & Bogetoft, Peter & F. Cardoso, Margarida & Castro-Martinez, Elena & Crespi, Gustavo & de Lucio, Ignacio Fernandez, 2011. "The European university landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 148-164, February.
    6. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "Modelling and Measuring Scientific Production: Results for a Panel of OECD Countries," SPRU Working Paper Series 133, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    8. Migheli, Matteo & Zotti, Roberto, 2020. "The strange case of the Matthew effect and beauty contests: Research evaluation and specialisation in Italian universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Benedetto, Lepori & Geuna, Aldo & Veglio, Valerio, 2017. "A Typology of European Universities. Differentiation and resource distribution," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201705, University of Turin.
    10. Thomas Zacharewicz & Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 105-115.
    11. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. Benedetto Lepori & Aldo Geuna & Antonietta Mira, 2019. "Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Byeongwoo Kang & Kazuyuki Motohashi, 2020. "Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 169-193, July.
    14. Fabrizio Cesaroni & Andrea Piccaluga & Giuseppe Conti, 2005. "Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) in Italian universities: what they do and how they do it," Working Papers 200505, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    15. Malwina Mejer, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Scientists and their Publication Performance. An Insight from Belgium," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2011-017, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Schaeffer, Véronique, 2019. "The use of material transfer agreements in academia: A threat to open science or a cooperation tool?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    18. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Smeby, Jens-Christian, 2005. "Industry funding and university professors' research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 932-950, August.
    19. Gustavo Crespi & Aldo Geuna & Lionel Nesta, 2007. "The mobility of university inventors in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 195-215, June.
    20. Benedetto Lepori & Aldo Geuna & Valerio Veglio, 2017. "A Typology of European Research Universities. Differentiation, Layering and Resource Distribution," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-01, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Laura Ballestra or Cinzia Carlevaris (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.