Performance Management Strikes Danish Universities

  • Poul Erik MouritzenEmail author
  • Niels Opstrup
Part of the Public Sector Organizations book series (PSO)


This introductory chapter discusses the Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI) as an example of performance management at universities and the use of performance-based university research funding systems. The chapter describes the background and context of the BRI as well as the goals and expectations behind the system and its main principals, namely the point system which is used to score publications according to type (monograph, journal article, etc.) and level (‘normal level,’ known as Level 1, and ‘high level,’ known as Level 2). Finally, the strength of the financial incentives for individual universities based on the BRI is explained.


Performance management Bibliometric research indicator University funding PRFS 


  1. Aagaard, Kaare. 2011. Kampen om basismidlerne: Historisk institutionel analyse af basisbevillingsmodellens udvikling på universitetsområdet i Danmark. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  2. Aagaard, Kaare, Carter Bloch, and Jesper W. Schneider. 2015. Impacts of Performance-Based Research Funding Systems: The Case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation 24 (2): 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aagaard, Kaare, Carter Bloch, Jesper W. Schneider, Dorte Henriksen, Thomas Kjeldager Ryan, and Per Stig Lauridsen. 2014. Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator. Aarhus: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, Katharine. 2007. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The Evolution of a National Research Evaluation System”. Research Evaluation 16(1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyne, George A. 2010. “Performance Management: Does It Work?”, pp. 207–226 in Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, and Gene A. Brewer (Eds.) Public Management and Performance: Research Directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Det Frie Forskningsråd. 2015. Det Frie Forskningsråds årsrapport 2015. København: Det Frie Forskningsråd.Google Scholar
  7. Ejersbo, Niels, and Carsten Greve. 2019. “University Reforms in Context—The Relationship Between University Reforms and General Reforms in the Public Sector”, in Niels Ejersbo, Carsten Greve, and Signe Pihl-Thingvad (Eds.) Governing the Reformed University. London: Routledge (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. Ejersbo, Niels, Signe Pihl-Thingvad, and Maiken Westergaard. 2019. “Autonomy and Performance at Universities”, in Niels Ejersbo, Carsten Greve, and Signe Pihl-Thingvad (Eds.) Governing the Reformed University. London: Routledge (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  9. Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen. 2008. Samlet notat om den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. December 18. Accessed February 19, 2019.
  10. Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen. 2009. Samlet notat om den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. October 22. Accessed March 9, 2017.
  11. Geuna, Aldo, and Ben R. Martin. 2003. “University Research Evaluation and Funding. An International Comparison”. Minerva 41(4): 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geuna, Aldo, and Matteo Piolatto. 2016. “Research Assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and Difficult, but Probably Worth It (At Least for a While)”. Research Policy 45(1): 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hicks, Diana. 2012. “Performance-Based Research Funding Systems”. Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonkers, Koen, and Thomas Zacharewicz. 2016. Research Performance Based Funding Systems: A Comparative Assessment. European Commission: JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, Ben R. 2011. “The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘Impact Agenda’: Are We Creating a Frankenstein Monster?” Research Evaluation 20(3): 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. 2009. The University Evaluation 2009. Evaluation Report. Copenhagen: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.Google Scholar
  17. Moynihan, Donald P. 2006. “Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform”. Public Administration Review 66(1): 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management. Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Opstrup, Niels. 2014. Causes and Consequences of Performance Management at Danish University Departments. Odense: Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  20. Regeringen. 2005. “Danmark i den globale økonomi. Offentlig forskning – mere konkurrence og bedre kvalitet”. Regeringens debatoplæg til mødet i Globaliseringsrådet. December 8–9.Google Scholar
  21. Schneider, Jesper W., Kaare Aagaard, and Carter Bloch. 2016. “What Happens When National Research Funding Is Linked to Differentiated Publication Counts? A Comparison of the Australian and Norwegian Publication-Based Funding Models”. Research Evaluation 25(3): 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sivertsen, Gunnar. 2017. “Unique, but Still Best Practice? The Research Excellence Framework (REF) from an International Perspective”. Palgrave Communications 3: 170–178.Google Scholar
  23. Soss, Joe, Richard Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011. “The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (Suppl. 2): i203–i232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spørgsmål og svar om den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. 2009.Google Scholar
  25. Swiss, James E. 2005. “A Framework for Assessing Incentives in Results-Based Management”. Public Administration Review 65(5): 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tahar, Sadri, and Roman Boutellier. 2013. “Resource Allocation in Higher Education in the Context of New Public Management”. Public Management Review 15(5): 687–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walker, Richard M., George A. Boyne, and Gene A. Brewer. 2010. “Introduction”, pp. 1–33 in Richard M. Walker, George A. Boyne, and Gene A. Brewer (Eds.) Public Management and Performance: Research Directions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Political Science and Public ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations