Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- What Does the Italian Experience in Research Evaluation Tell to the International Debate on SSH? -- Acknowledgment -- Contents -- Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Epistemic Differences Between STEM and SSH -- 3 Epistemic Differences Within SSH -- 4 Taking into Account Epistemic Differences and Evaluating with Fairness -- References -- Part I: Research Quality Criteria in SSH -- Mapping the Role of the Book in Evaluation at the Individual and Department Level in Italian SSH. A Multisource Analysis -- 1 The Centrality of the Book: Quantitative Tools for an Informed Peer Review -- 2 Some Italian Specificities -- 2.1 A Brief History of the Evaluation of Research in Italy -- 2.2 The Classification of Disciplines in Italy: Disciplinary Sectors -- 3 Levels of Evaluation and the Point on Which All the Lines Converge -- 3.1 The Role of the Monograph for the Subjects Evaluated in VQR 2004-2010 -- 3.2 The Importance of the Monograph for Evalutators: Parameters and Criteria for the ASN -- 4 Some Findings Regarding the Evaluation of Monographs in the SSH -- 5 Some Open Questions -- 5.1 Evaluation of Research vs. Evaluation of Third Mission Activities in the SSH -- 5.2 Unexpected Consequences -- References -- Guidelines for Peer Review. A Survey of International Practices -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The European Approach to Peer Review -- 2.1 The Italian Context -- References -- Peer Review in Social Sciences and Humanities. Addressing the Interpretation of Quality Criteria -- 1 Methodological Foundations of Peer Review in SSH Research Assessment -- 2 Refining Research Quality Criteria for the Peer Review Process -- 3 Peer Review in the Research Assessment Exercise (VQR 2004-2010) -- 4 Object of Evaluation -- 4.1 Object of Evaluation: (a) Architectural Projects -- 4.2 Object of Evaluation: (b) Textbooks

The paper reviews the Italian experience in the evaluation of research in the 2000–2020 period. The initial exercise (VTR 2000–2003) did not involve all researchers and had no impact on funding. After a long political and cultural debate there was a decision to create an independent Agency in charge of a periodic research assessment, involving all researchers, and having impact on performance-based funding. The legislation was approved in 2006 and the Agency was created in 2010–2011. In parallel, a major reform of academic promotion was approved in 2010. The Agency (ANVUR) launched three exercises, two of which have been completed and published (Valutazione della Qualità della Ricerca, or Assessment of Research Quality, VQR 2004–2010 and VQR 2011–2014). It also developed a complete array of quantitative indicators to be used as a threshold for candidates to the academic promotion (Habilitation). The paper offers detailed evidence of the evaluative framework, the main methodological and practical problems and the changes and adaptations introduced over time. It concludes with several policy implications.