View
34
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Reflections on the
comments
www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz
Is the description of the proposed method for allocation of PRFS clear?
• Overall picture
• Yes: 55
• No: 10
• Comments
• „Yes, but too complicated“
• „No, because too complicated and / or far too long for busy people“
• Specific issues
• Role of funding and founding ministries
• Inclusion of PhD-students (no) and non-PhD-researchers (yes)
• Budgetary issues (starting point, inflation, calculation through the funding period)
• Questions regarding the New Evaluation Methodology
2
Which of the two proposed methods of allocations of PRFS do you prefer?• Two options:
• based on size (person scores)
• based on relative scores
• Overall picture
• based on size: 26
• based on relative scores: 29
• undecided or none of both: 10 (+)
• Issues
• definition of FTE
• possibly different consequences for different types of RO different solutions for
different RO type?
3
Do you consider leaving part of the funding for future development of institutions suitable (PA)? Is the proposed share of 5% optimal? • Overall picture
• Yes: 47
• No: 14
• Undecided: 3
• Issues
• Empty promises?! Opens doors to corruption and clientelism.
• Too burdensome for 5%
• Capacities of providers?!
• Higher share (10%) – or no PA at all
• Different shares for different types of RO
4
Do you consider the proposed division of the total budget of institutional funding into „pots“ for different types of RO suitable? Why?• Overall picture
• Yes: 49
• No: 16
• Issues
• Agreement with proposal to differentiate RO by mission
• Disagreement with categorisation of ROs
• Which type of RO is my RO?
• What is an eligible RO at all?
5
What is important for your RO?
• Three options
• budget volume
• stability of funding system and rules
• dynamics of funding system
• Overall picture: Extremely important
• budget volume: 30
• stability of funding system and rules: 33
• dynamics of funding system: 1
• undecided: 1
• Issues
• Many comments: volume AND stability are both extremely important
6
Do you consider the proposed share of PRFS (15%) in the institutional funding to be the right proportion? Why (not)?• Overall picture
• yes: 44
• no: 19
• undecided: 1
• Issues
• Strongly depends on fairness of the New Evaluation Methodology
• Share should be lower because of issues with the New Evaluation Methodolgy
• peer review cannot be trusted
• foreign reviewers do not understand the Czech situation and system
• the evaluation criteria are not objective
• Share should be higher
• to overturn „current rotten coffee mill“
• because performance is most important
• because Technoplis would not be credible if they suggested a lower share7
Are the proposed weights for evaluation criteria appropriate to your RO? If not, explain.• Overall picture
• yes: 38
• no: 21
• unspecified: 6
• Issues:
• Various suggestions for different weights
• Voices for each of the different scenarios (default, medium, radical)
• RO are not homogeneous internally (faculties)
• Some issues with the evaluation criteria
• management is contested most, considered too important
• criteria are not completely independent
8
9
Sammeln
• Counting researchers
• Only PhD-holders? Why not PhD-students or holders of Ing. and Mgr. degrees that
do research?
• Disputed issue, not equally relevant to all RO
• Trade of: size-gaming vs. poor productivity ratings in the Evaluation
• Gaming only possible if person scores are used
• To be reconsidered
• Tři
• čtyři
10
What ratio of institutional funding to competitive funding do you consider optimal in your RO?
11
12
Místo pro vložení tabulek, grafů atp.
Děkujeme za pozornost!
www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz
Recommended