Five Myths
description
Transcript of Five Myths
Five Myths
About Funding Scientific Research (in Austria)
….and what Evaluation can do to make them more ‘Evidence Based’.
Five Myths
• „No Money for the Humanities and Social Sciences in Austria!“
• „There is a funding gap between basic research and applied research!“
• „Engeneering is treated unfair!“
• Networks, Fretworks
• Impacts – now!
Myth 1:
„No money in the humanities / social sciences“
• Humanites get a raw deal… (Der Standard, 31. Mai 2005)
• Social Sciences and Humanities are „starved out“ financially (Austrian Green Party, 13. Mai 2005)
• …marginalisation of the Humanities…“.(M. Nießen, DFG)
Mapping the Social Sciences & Humanities in Austria…
• No Evaluation / No Benchmarking Exercise in the field
• Lack of data– Contract research of the ministries?
• No vivid programme scene
• … but looking at further empirical evidence…
R&D in the higher education sector, 2002
Source: FTB 2005
136.0582.275,42.982203 >> Humanities
165.7552.718,43.775208 >> Social Sciences
301.8134.993,86.757411Social Sciences & Humanities
70.089847,51.06044Agriculture, Forestry & Veterinary Medicine
333.5166.025,67.284144Medicine (incl. clinics)
173.4932.690,63.502173Technical sciences
387.1934.865,26.469197Natural sciences
FTEheadcount
R&D expenditures in 1000 EUR
R&D personnel
number of R&D units
Contract Research, 2003
Source: FTB 2005
total sum in % bm:bwk bm:vit bm:wa
Natural sciences 11.099.561 19,6 8.794.489 617.055 187.097
Technical sciences 7.472.237 13,2 1.686.947 5.214.199 132.180
Medicine (incl. clinics) 13.264.064 23,5 12.848.845 89.969 -
Agriculture, Forestry & Veterinary Medicine 2.997.521 5,3 464.558 - 10.433
Social Sciences & Humanities 21.698.122 38,4 18.189.699 1.129.160 950.817
>> Social Sciences 14.735.356 26,1 11.226.933 1.129.160 950.817
>> Humanities 6.962.766 12,3 6.962.766 - -
FWF-project fundingAcceptance Rates, 1998-2003
Source: Streicher 2004
• Highest Acceptance Rate– Natural Sciences and Humanities: 58%
• Lowest Acceptance Rate– Agriculture and Social Sciences: 35%
• Funding Rates– Quite homogeneous– 70 % Human Medicine– 80% Humanities
A „Benchmarking Exercise“
Source: FWF Evaluation, Streicher, Schibany 2004
• Benchmark Project– Natural Sciences, male co-ordinator– Age 40-50, Size 150 – 250 k€– Approval Rate: 52,4%
Variable % Difference in approval rateTechnical Sciences - 8,5Human Medicine -15,1Agriculture, Forestry, VetMed -18,1Social Sciences -19,2Humanities + 4,5(A cautionary remark: It would be wrong to interpret the co-efficents causally)
A „Benchmarking Exercise“
Source: Streicher 2004
• Yes, projects of a different scientific flavour face significantly different chances– Against a benchmark project, Social
Sciences are rejected far more frequently– Humanities are (slightly but significantly)
more successful
Take into account…
• Classification• Structural Issues
– Age?– Fragmentation of Research Units?– Perspectives for younger researchers?– Researchers = working poor?
• Quality– Kind of Indicators
• ……
Heterogeneous average working loads (in % of total working hours)
Source: FTB 2005
teaching &
training R&D other tasks
Natural sciences 29,5 64,4 6,1
Technical sciences 31,3 61,5 7,2
Medicine (incl. clinics) 16,8 36,7 46,5
>> without clinics 24,7 65,8 9,5
>> clinics 14,0 26,3 59,7
Agriculture, Forestry & Veterinary Medicine 25,6 57,0 17,4
Social Sciences & Humanities 45,0 47,4 7,6
>> Social Sciences 43,8 48,5 7,7
>> Humanities 46,5 46,1 7,4
Conclusions
• There is never enough money for doing research– No evidence, that Humanities / Social
Sciencies are treated unfair
• „Not enough money for the humanities / social Sciencies?“– This is an urban legend
Challanges for the future:
• Evaluators– Evaluators should be
• Sceptical, • suspicious of everybody
– Triangulation is necessary!– Quantitative Methods are valuable sources of
information
• Stakeholders– Ask the big questions (from time to time), too.– Give the evaluators the degrees of freedom to answer
these questions.
Mythos 2:
Funding Gaps between basic and applied sciences
„Funding Gap“
Basic Sciences Applied Sciences
Wissenschaftin A
Sciencein A
Wirtschaftin A
Economyin A
Dream Nightmare Reality
Risk Aversity & FFF
• Overall [FFF] tends to take too little risk.
• FFF funding practice is risk-averse.
• [The linear model] is a misleading oversimplification that encourages us to make poor policy decisions.
Source: FFF Evaluation, Arnold 2004
Source: FFF Evaluation, Jörg 2004
Source: FFF Evaluation, Arnold 2004
FWF Projects: Commercial Output & Usability
41%: results are relevant for industry
30%: important lab results
20%: working prototypes exist
13% research results are suitable for commercialization straight away
Source: FWF Evaluation, Streicher, Schibany 2004
Basic Sciences Applied Sciences
BRIDGE: Translational Research & Brückenschlagprogramm
Verkehrstechnologien: ISB & A3
Weltraum: ASAP & ARTIST
Luftfahrt: TAKE OFF
Informationstechnologien: FIT-IT
Nanotechnologie: Nano-Initiative
Kplus
K-Ind / Knet
CDG
18.9
K-Ind ?
7.3 (2003)
8
11.6
3.5
5.9
10.8
5.11 (2004- Translational FWF)
101.51 127.15
~ 70 Millionen €
Conclusions
Source: mid term Evaluation FIT-IT, 2005
• There is no funding gap (anymore)
• „Funding gap: No guiding principle for policymakers (anymore)
• Funding Gap: Urban Legend II
Challenges for the Future I
• In a NIS, there is the need for Evaluation of Systems (from time to time)
• In a NIS, there is the need for Evaluation of Portfolios (from time to time)
Challenges for the future II
• Room for „curiosity driven Evaluation“• Methodological Development
– Evaluation is no pure science, but– It is no consulting business, too.– Of cause, Evaluation must have a sound scientific basis
• Ensure degrees of freedom– Budget!– TORs
• Fight Evaluation Fatigue– Realistic expectations– sufficent time spans
Next Steps
Paper, part of the conference….
„New Frontiers in Evaluation“
www.fteval.at/conference06
24./ 25. April 2006
Vienna, Austria
Team
Michael Dinges, Joanneum Research
Michaela Glanz, WWTF
Brigitte Tempelmaier, WWTF