RKTL - tietoa kestäviin valintoihin Experiences from evaluation Experiences from evaluation Petri Suuronen, Research Director Finnish Game and Fisheries

RKTL - tietoa kestäviin valintoihin

Experiences from evaluationExperiences from evaluation

Petri Suuronen, Petri Suuronen, Research DirectorResearch Director Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute

(FGFRI)(FGFRI)

International Evaluation of Water Research in FinlandSäätytalo, 1 April 2008

International Evaluation of Water Research in FinlandSäätytalo, 1 April 2008


Timetable for preparations was tight

• First information of the evaluation received in September 2006.

• Detailed request came 11 April 2007.

• Dead line for the material was 14 May 2007.

• The rather short time (1 month) allowed for collecting the evaluation material caused some difficulties in the institutes.

This may have affected the quality of the data collected.


Interpretations in the evaluation material

• The Evaluation covered water research.

• In research institutes there are various expert services not directly connected to research work.

• Many scientists work both on research and expert activities.

• The location of the borderline between research and other tasks is often fairly difficult to define (fuzzy).

It is possible that the man-months used for research are not presented in an exactly uniform manner (within and between institutes).


Imperfect data

• The data request for the evaluation indicated that institutes may have shortcomings in their routine systems of recording various activities.

• For instance, we noticed that we had no database available concerning the participation of our staff in radio and TV-programs.

• Therefore, our data for the evaluation are imperfect at least in this respect.


Quality of publications – how to measure?

• Senior scientists had to list their five key publications in the quality order.

• The word “quality” was open to interpretations; it could mean:

relevancy of the study,

the quality of the journal (impact factor), or

the number of the citations to that paper.

• It is obvious that the key publications are not listed in an exactly uniform manner.


Expertise of the Evaluation Panel

• Water research is a wide field.

• Fisheries research is a small part of it (game research even smaller).

• It is almost inevitable that some fields are better represented in the evaluation panel (than some other fields).

• It appeared that the panel, although relatively small, had a wide expertise in the water research, and good understanding even about fisheries research.

The discussion between the Panel and FGFRI representatives was very fruitful and constructive.

We certainly were not undervalued .


Relevancy of the research

• Scientific quality is the cornerstone of the work of any research institution.

• For the governmental research institutes also the relevancy of research is a fundamental factor.

• Institutes work in a turbulent world where the research results are brutally criticised if they do not support the view of the stakeholders.

literally between the devil and the deep blue sea.

• Strategic choices of the research (i.e., relevancy) would have been an important item to assess and evaluate.

The short time period did not allow in-depth discussions about the relevancy.


Research infrastructure scattered

• The water research in Finland is scattered all over the country and there are plenty of players within the field.

Finland is a land of field research stations!Finland is a land of field research stations!

• The Panel could have visited and familiarized with some of the aquatic field stations in various parts of Finland.

• An evaluation of the optimal number and locations of research stations could have been useful?

Promotion of cooperation important.


Recommendations made by the Evaluation Panel

• Despite of the small troubles described above, the International Evaluation has generated a highly useful outcome for the future development of the Finnish water research.

• The Report includes 11 clear recommendations, which will be our guidelines for the coming development actions.


(a) Shift from mass-production of PhD’s

• A structural weakness was observed in the Finnish education system.

The focus has been in the production of large numbers of PhD’s.

• The system should better support high-quality PhD studies and in particular post-doc careers of young scientists.

• This problem has been recognized also in the governmental research institutes.

FGFRI will create a system where post-docs can be recruited more efficiently (e.g. through open international calls).


(b) Effective use of long-term data sets

• The long-term data sets collected by institutes are essential for their: research activities, and

management services.

• Effective and integrated use of these data sets is of fundamental importance in maximizing the understanding of ecosystem processes.

• Co-operation is getting stronger and stronger with several universities and institutes, and data sets are increasingly used in shared projects.

We are willing to develop approaches to better share the data.

Free availability of data through internet demands proper technology, well designed rules, and perhaps also mental revolution.


(c) Inventory of the current data series

• The importance of long-term data sets is constantly increasing.

• An assessment should be made of the reliability and usefulness of the current data sets.

In addition, the role of long-term monitoring conducted by different institutes and universities should be better synchronized, secured and strengthened.

• The Finnish government is currently reforming the organization and funding of the governmental research institutes:

every possible effort should be made to ensure the continuation of the most valuable data series, and to further improve their quality.


(d) Some other recommendations

• There should be more research on flowing waters, including sophisticated ecology-based approaches of restoration.

• Research on socio-economic aspects needs substantial strengthening.

• There should be more integration among predictive modellers and experimental scientists (model validation).

There has been apparent progress in this area during the last 10 years (e.g. BIREME-programme funded by the Academy of Finland).

• A stronger and wider international cooperation should be fostered by Finnish universities and institutes.

A more active participation in international research projects (e.g. EU-funded) would be one potential way to dealt with this demand.


Conclusions

• The demands for high quality and comprehensive aquatic research is dramatically increasing (Climate change, Baltic Sea, etc).

• The recent policy of reduction the resources of research institutes creates major challenges to maintain the current high standards, not to mention to improve the standards.

• This evaluation will help us to prepare for the future challenges.

It is good to know where we stand, and where to improve!

• Comparison of earlier evaluations and the recent one indicates that we have responded successfully to majority of the recommendations given in the previous evaluations.

We will do the same also concerning the recent evaluation - it is in our best interest.


Our warmest thanks to You for the valuable work Our warmest thanks to You for the valuable work done in favour of the water research in Finland!done in favour of the water research in Finland!

Documents

RKTL - tietoa kestäviin valintoihin Experiences from evaluation Experiences from evaluation Petri Suuronen, Research Director Finnish Game and Fisheries