International Evaluation of the Academy of Finland
Gibbons, Michael; Dowling, Patrick J; Mirdal, Gretty; Pettersson, Ralf F (2004)
Gibbons, Michael
Dowling, Patrick J
Mirdal, Gretty
Pettersson, Ralf F
opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö
2004
Julkaisusarja:
Publications of the Ministry of Education 2004:16This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:952-442-736-2Tiivistelmä
The present International Evaluation of the Academy of Finland aims to support further development of the Academy of Finland and science policy in Finland. The Evaluation Panel's recommendations (Section 6.3) are summarised here:
1. We recommend that the Academy's contribution to research policy be re-evaluated in relation to the role that it has, can, and should play in the larger national system with the purpose of increasing its effectiveness and its sustainability.
2. We recommend that consideration be given to the establishment of a forum located somewhere in the institutional space between the Academy and Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland, perhaps involving university rectors and directors of the government research institutes, to help strengthen horizontal connectivity with other participants in the innovation system who have interest in, and a need for, high quality research. In this, we believe that the exploration of more robust career structures for researchers would be helpful in strengthening connectivity.
3. We recommend that the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Education make a fresh effort to establish closer working relationships between Tekes and the Academy.
4. We recommend that the remit, composition, and function of the Board be reconsidered in the light of the need to develop more broadly based research policies which would encourage interdisciplinarity, develop more cross-council cooperation, and promote greater connectivity with other research producing institutions and organisations.
5. To help strengthen the Board to become a more effective science policy organisation, we further recommend that the Academy considers extending the tenure of Board members and staggering the dates of their appointment. Changing membership every three years, as is done currently, leaves the collective memory of the Board repeatedly depleted, undermines continuity and limits the effectiveness of policy development.
6. We recommend that in future, the Academy should build upon its expertise in research policy and in funding of scientific excellence through experimenting with more broadly based project evaluation systems, in its efforts to foster interdisciplinarity and stimulate cross-council research.
7. To ensure that existing resources are effectively utilised and that resources continue to be available for new initiatives, we recommend that the Academy should insist on an exit strategy as a prerequisite for successful bids for research programmes and centres of excellence. If more broadly based expert systems are developed, we stress the need not only for a great deal of experimentation but also for openness and transparency in the procedures adopted.
8. The Panel recommends that the most successful Academy Research Fellows should be able to get a 3–5 year extension of their appointment, following a peer review evaluation. In addition, we recommend that the Academy, the universities, and the Ministry of Education should jointly formulate a national policy to ensure continuity in the career development of researchers who want to pursue an academic career. One attractive model would be a tenure-track system.
9. We recommend that the Academy, in co-operation with the Finnish research community at large, the universities, and the main players of the Finnish research system develop transparent and scientifically sound solutions to the problems of the evaluation of interdisciplinary projects.
10. We recommend that the Academy reviews the level of funding for the social sciences and humanities with a view of satisfying itself that the funds available are sufficient to allow researchers in these areas to participate fully in the Academy's programmes and to promote interdisciplinary research.
11. We recommend that the Academy ensures that it has established areas of excellence that are of sufficient credibility to attract researchers internationally and that the Academy considers an initiative to develop further Finland as an international research "attractor".
12. We recommend that the procedures governing the many funding forms of the Academy be reviewed, rationalised and shortened.
13. We recommend that the Academy devote more effort to clarifying the raison d'etre for targeted funds and the selection processes that govern both the choice of topics and the allocation of resources to research programmes and centre of excellence programmes.
1. We recommend that the Academy's contribution to research policy be re-evaluated in relation to the role that it has, can, and should play in the larger national system with the purpose of increasing its effectiveness and its sustainability.
2. We recommend that consideration be given to the establishment of a forum located somewhere in the institutional space between the Academy and Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland, perhaps involving university rectors and directors of the government research institutes, to help strengthen horizontal connectivity with other participants in the innovation system who have interest in, and a need for, high quality research. In this, we believe that the exploration of more robust career structures for researchers would be helpful in strengthening connectivity.
3. We recommend that the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Education make a fresh effort to establish closer working relationships between Tekes and the Academy.
4. We recommend that the remit, composition, and function of the Board be reconsidered in the light of the need to develop more broadly based research policies which would encourage interdisciplinarity, develop more cross-council cooperation, and promote greater connectivity with other research producing institutions and organisations.
5. To help strengthen the Board to become a more effective science policy organisation, we further recommend that the Academy considers extending the tenure of Board members and staggering the dates of their appointment. Changing membership every three years, as is done currently, leaves the collective memory of the Board repeatedly depleted, undermines continuity and limits the effectiveness of policy development.
6. We recommend that in future, the Academy should build upon its expertise in research policy and in funding of scientific excellence through experimenting with more broadly based project evaluation systems, in its efforts to foster interdisciplinarity and stimulate cross-council research.
7. To ensure that existing resources are effectively utilised and that resources continue to be available for new initiatives, we recommend that the Academy should insist on an exit strategy as a prerequisite for successful bids for research programmes and centres of excellence. If more broadly based expert systems are developed, we stress the need not only for a great deal of experimentation but also for openness and transparency in the procedures adopted.
8. The Panel recommends that the most successful Academy Research Fellows should be able to get a 3–5 year extension of their appointment, following a peer review evaluation. In addition, we recommend that the Academy, the universities, and the Ministry of Education should jointly formulate a national policy to ensure continuity in the career development of researchers who want to pursue an academic career. One attractive model would be a tenure-track system.
9. We recommend that the Academy, in co-operation with the Finnish research community at large, the universities, and the main players of the Finnish research system develop transparent and scientifically sound solutions to the problems of the evaluation of interdisciplinary projects.
10. We recommend that the Academy reviews the level of funding for the social sciences and humanities with a view of satisfying itself that the funds available are sufficient to allow researchers in these areas to participate fully in the Academy's programmes and to promote interdisciplinary research.
11. We recommend that the Academy ensures that it has established areas of excellence that are of sufficient credibility to attract researchers internationally and that the Academy considers an initiative to develop further Finland as an international research "attractor".
12. We recommend that the procedures governing the many funding forms of the Academy be reviewed, rationalised and shortened.
13. We recommend that the Academy devote more effort to clarifying the raison d'etre for targeted funds and the selection processes that govern both the choice of topics and the allocation of resources to research programmes and centre of excellence programmes.