1 / 12

International evaluation of water research in Finland

International evaluation of water research in Finland. Liselotte Sundstöm. Background. Decision by the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment in 2006 The previous evaluation in the 1980’s (hydrobiology)

cyma
Download Presentation

International evaluation of water research in Finland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International evaluation of water research in Finland Liselotte Sundstöm

  2. Background • Decision by the Research Council for Biosciences and Environment in 2006 • The previous evaluation in the 1980’s (hydrobiology) • During the past 10-15 years several research programmes in which water research has been prominent • Identification of issues in need of development in the field; Bonus • The aim: a comprehensive evaluation of the present quality of water research and its development • Researcher-driven approach

  3. Steering group • Prof. Liselotte Sundström (chair), Academy of Finland, Research council for Biosciences and Environment • Prof. Johanna Buchert, Academy of Finland, Research council for Natural Sciences and Engineering • Senior adviser Minna Hanski, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry • Prof. Marja-Liisa Hänninen, Academy of Finland, Research council for Health • Prof. Juha Kämäri, Academy of Finland, research council for biosciences and environment • Prof. Jaakko Pehkonen, Academy of Finland, Research council for Culture and Society

  4. The Panel • prof. Brian Moss (chair), University of Liverpool (limnology and freshwater ecology, eutrophication) • prof. Wolfgang Fennel (physical oceonography, physics&biology, Baltic Sea) • prof. Chinnaya Namasivayam, Bharathiar University/Univ. of Wageningen (environmental&water chemistry) • prof. Sybil Seitzinger, Rutgers University (biogeochemistry, nutrient dynamics, land/atmosphere/ocean interactions) • prof. Pauline Snoeijs, Uppsala University (marine and brackish water ecology and ecophysiology) • Senior scíentist John Stegeman, WHOI (ecotoxicology) • prof. Dan Rosbjerg, technical University of Denmark (hydrology, water resource management)

  5. Terms of Reference • Document produced by the steering group • Provided a common basis for the panel and the units to be evaluated • Defined • the field to be evaluated • the key goals of evaluation • issues to be evaluated • Rules of evaluation (confidentality, publicity, impartiality)

  6. Delimitation of the evaluation • Public research conducted in universities and research institutes • Emphasis on natural sciences • Monitoring and company-driven research excluded • Focus on quality of research and researcher training • Evaluation period 2002-2006 • Focus on suface waters • In practice: water research of importance for biological and ecological processes in the aquatic environment

  7. Objectives of the evaluation Targets • Scientific quality in research and training • Research environment and organisation • Research system • Outreach to society Outcome • Identification of strengths and weaknesses • Suggestions and recommendations for improvement 4.9.2014 7

  8. Scientific quality • productivity and international scientific standing of research and research training • innovations, challenges and strategies in the research Research environment and research organisation • organization of activities in terms of leadership and administration • congruence between the research unit(s) and the host organization • involvement in national and international research networks • interdisciplinarity 4.9.2014 8

  9. Research system • promotion of scientific excellence in terms of strategic plans, staff, funding, infrastructure, and mobility? • synergies in terms of cooperation and division of labour Outreach to society • activity and efficiency in communicating findings to stakeholders, policy makers, and other members of the society • Indicators: expert tasks, popularised works, patenting, technology transfer and cooperation with other sectors of society 4.9.2014 9

  10. Outcome Twofold: Feedback to individual units Assessment of current standing • Identification of strengths and weaknesses • Identification of potential, but as yet not realised, synergies • Suggestions and recommendations for improvement on • focus and emphasis • networking and use of infrastructure • scientific quality and innovation • outreach to policy makers and stake holders 4.9.2014 10

  11. Tasks, responsibilities and work arrangements • Panel members set responsibilities within the group and together with the Evaluation Secretary Dr Timo Huttula • The evaluation Office provided all evaluation documents and background information • The material consisted of evaluation documents, the units’ presentations, interviews and discussions • Desk research was carried out before the Panel’s visit to Finland • Each research unit had an opportunity to present the focal points of the unit’s research.

  12. Impartiality, confidentiality and publicity • The evaluation adhered to the impartiality rules common to the field of evaluation • Panel members undertook not to make use of and not to divulge to third parties any non-public facts or information • The evaluation report was confidential and only for official use until publication.

More Related