Effort Substitution?

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


Has the introduction of the Bibliometric Research Indicator affected the status and priority of other tasks, most notably teaching and knowledge dissemination activities? Based on researchers’ self-reported weekly working hours and how their time allocation has changed, there are no indications of teaching activities being given a lower priority. On the contrary, research time has decreased while time spent on teaching activities has increased. However, these results indicate that efforts to disseminate research results may have been reduced as a consequence of the BRI and how it has been implemented locally.


Effort substitution Time allocation 


  1. 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
  2. Anderson, Derrick M., and Catherine P. Slade. 2016. “Managing Institutional Research Advancement: Implications from a University Faculty Time Allocation Study”. Research in Higher Education 57 (1): 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auken, Sune, and Claus Emmeche. 2010. “Mismåling af forskningskvalitet. Sandhed, relevans og normativ validitet i den bibliometriske forskningsindikator”. Kritik 197: 2–12.Google Scholar
  4. Bevan, Gwyn, and Christopher Hood. 2006. “What’s Measured Is What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System”. Public Administration 84 (3): 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, Linda. 2010. “Impacts of Performance-Based Research Funding Systems: A Review of the Concerns and the Evidence”, pp. 127–165 in OECD Workshop Proceedings: Performance-Based Funding Systems for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. EVA. 2015. Fordelingen af det stigende optag på universiteterne. En kortlægning af udviklingen i studenterpopulationen på de otte universiteter. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut (EVA). Accessed February 1, 2019.
  7. Gibbons, Robert. 1998. “Incentives in Organizations”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (4): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kelman, Steven, and John N. Friedman. 2009. “Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (1): 917–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kerr, Steven. 1995. “On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B”. Academy of Management Executive 9 (1): 7–14.Google Scholar
  10. Link, Albert N., Christopher A. Swann, and Barry Bozeman. 2008. “A Time Allocation Study of University Faculty”. Economics of Education Review 27 (4): 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McNay, Ian. 1998. “The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and After: ‘You Never Know How It Will All Turn Out’”. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 2 (1): 19–22.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, Peter. 1995. “On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector”. International Journal of Public Administration 18 (2–3): 277–310.CrossRefGoogle 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