Skip to main content

Research Evaluation in Transition

Individual versus Organisational Assessment in Spain

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 26))

Abstract

Research evaluation has been an essential practice of the regular functioning of the research system (Zuckerman and Merton 1971; Cole and Cole 1973). Reputational competition (Merton 1957; Ben-David 1971, 1972; Dasgupta and David 1994; Whitley 2000) has been shaped by mechanisms of evaluation of research mostly identified with the practice of peer review for journals’ publications (Campanario 1998a, b; Cole 1998).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ben-David, Joseph (1971), The Scientist’s Role in Society, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, Joseph (1972), American Higher Education, New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Dietmar (1993), ‘Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making’, Journal of Public Policy, 13, 135-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Linda (2003), ‘Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications – the effects of a funding formula based on publications counts’, Research Policy, 32, 143-155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricall Report (2000), Informe Universidad 2000, Madrid: CRUE

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel, Philippe Laredo and Philippe Mustar (eds.) (1995), La Gestion Stratégique de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, Jose Manuel (1998a) ‘Peer Review for Journals as It Stands Today’. Science Communication, 19, 181-211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, Jose Manuel (1998b) ‘Peer Review for Journals as It Stands Today’. Science Communication, 19, 277-306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, Daryl E. and Edward J. Hackett (1991), Peerless Science: Peer review and U.S. Science Policy, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen (1998), ‘How Does Peer Review Work and Can It be Improved?’ Minerva, 36, 179-189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen and Jonathan R. Cole (1973), Social stratification in Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen, Leonard Rubin and Jonathan R. Cole (1978), Peer review in the National Science Foundation: Phase one of a study, Washington DC: The National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Castro, Laura, and Luis Sanz-Menéndez (2006) ‘Careers at universities and public research centres: evidence from individual trajectories’ data’, Paper presented at the Conference on Science and Technology Policy 2006: US-EU Policies for Research and Innovation, Atlanta, 18-20 May 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Castro, Laura, and Luis Sanz-Menéndez (2007), ‘New Legitimation Models and the Transformation of the Public Research Organizational Field’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 37, 27-52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, Partha and Paul A. David (1994), ‘Towards a new economics of science’, Research Policy, 23, 487-521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983), ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FECYT [Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología] (2005), Indicadores Bibliométricos de la actividad científica española – 2004, Madrid: FECYT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández de Labastida, José Manuel (2005), ‘The role of institutional evaluation in the CSIC strategic planning and its consequences’, Presentation at the OECD/BMBF International Workshop on the Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research, Berlin, 26. and 27. September 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, Clara Eugenia and Luis Sanz-Menéndez (2003), ‘The Evolution of Knowledge Management Strategies in PROs: The Role of S&T Policy in Spain’, in OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (ed.) (2003), Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations,Paris: OECD, pp. 203-222.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, Clara Eugenia and Luis Sanz-Menéndez (2005), ‘Competition for funding as an indicator of research competitiveness: The Spanish R&D government funding’, Scientometrics, 64, 271-300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, Luke (1995), ‘Research evaluation in European and National science and technology systems’, Research Evaluation, 5, 3-10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo and Ben R. Martin (2003), ‘University Research Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison’, Minerva, 41, 277-304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzàlez Lopez, Marìa José (2006), ‘Towards decentralized and goal-oriented models of institutional resource allocation: The Spanish case’, Higher Education, 52, 589-617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernàndez Armenteros, Juan (2004), La Universidad española en cifras 2004,Madrid: CRUE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo, Felix de Moya-Anegòn and Emilio Delgado López-Cozar (2003), ‘The evolution of research activity in Spain: the impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI)’, Research Policy, 32, 123-142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, Ingo (2003), ‘Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems’. Higher Education, 46, 469-489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEC [Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia] (2004), Informe del Profesorado funcionario de las universidades pùblicas españolas y de la actividad investigadora evaluada, Madrid: Secretaria del Consejo de Coordinación Universitaria, MEC, Junio 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. (1957), ‘Priorities in scientific discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science’, in American Sociological Review, 22, 635-659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, José-Gines (2001), ‘The academic profession in Spain: Between the civil service and the market’, Higher Education, 41, 131-155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (1964), Country Report on the Organisation of Scientific Research: Spain, Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2006), Evaluation of Publicly Funded Research. Recent Trends and Perspectives, Report prepared by Luke Georghiou and Philippe Laredo [DSTI/STP(2006)7], Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews (1966), Scientists in Organizations. Productive Climates for Research And Development, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sànchez-Ferrer, Leonardo (1997), ‘From Bureaucratic Centralisation to Self-Regulation: The Reform of Higher Education in Spain’, West European Politics, 20, 164-184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, Luis (1995), ‘Research actors and the State: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain’, Research Evaluation, 5, 79-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, Luis (1997), Estado, ciencia y tecnologìa en España (1939-1997),Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, Luis and Laura Cruz Castro (2003), ‘Coping with environmental pressures: Public Research Organizations responses to funding crisis’, Research Policy, 32, 1293-1308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanz-Menéndez, Luis and Laura Cruz-Castro (2005), ‘Explaining the science and technology policies of regional governments’, Regional Studies, 39, 939-954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoijet, Maurico and Richard Worthington (1993), ‘Globalisation of science and Repression of scientists in Mexico’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, 209-230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard (2000), The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, second edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard (2003), ‘Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science’, Research Policy, 32, 1015-1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Harriet and Robert K. Merton (1971), ‘Patterns of Evaluation in Science. Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of Referee System’. Minerva, 9, 66-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-MenéNdez, L. (2007). Research Evaluation in Transition. In: Whitley, R., Gläser, J. (eds) The Changing Governance of the Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics