1 / 23

Prida Wibulswas

FRAMEWORK ON RESEARCH QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES IN THAI UNIVERSITIES. Prida Wibulswas. ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES. Academic Ranking of World Universities, ARWU, annually since 2000:. Strength  All 5 quality indicators are research indicators. Weakness

kiaria
Download Presentation

Prida Wibulswas

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. FRAMEWORK ON RESEARCH QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES IN THAI UNIVERSITIES Prida Wibulswas

  2. ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES Academic Ranking of World Universities, ARWU, annually since 2000: Strength  All 5 quality indicators are research indicators.

  3. Weakness • Only one indicator is relevant to social sciences and humanities • Only English language journals are used for publications and citation. • One input indicator, teaching staff with Nobel prizes, favors rich countries such as USA. Note: No Thai university has been ranked in the top 500 research universities

  4. EC Ranking of European Universities, 2004: Strength All indicators are research output and impact indicators, namely no. of publications, citations. The indicators were obtained from journals published in English, French, German, etc. Weakness  No comparison was made between European and other world universities.

  5. EC Universities Ranking in 2001 • More than 2000 European universities will be included in the ranking. • The assessment will cover both research and teaching.

  6. THES World Universities Ranking: • Strength: •  Indicators are more relevant to undergraduate teaching including indicators on international students and international academic staff. • One research indicator is citations per faculty member • Weakness: • Among five indicators, peer review accounts for 40% of the assessment and tends to favour universities in the former member of the British Empire.

  7. Second Ranking of Thai Universities by CHE,2009: • Strength • Suitable for total quality assessment, i.e. teaching, learning and research • An important research output indicator, namely equivalent international journals, is included.

  8. Weakness • More teaching, learning and input indicators were used than relevant research indicators. • Some universities with very good research performances as assessed by ONESQA and TRF have not been included for CHE research funding.

  9. Strength of All Universities Rankings: • Common research indicators are journal publications, an output indicator and citations, an impact indicator.

  10. Weakness of All Research Rankings of Universities: • Most universities have both strong and weak academic disciplines. • The rankings of research universities are rather superficial and should not be taken seriously. • They are not suitable for fair distributions of research funding.

  11. Research Qualities Assessment & Rankingsof Higher Education Institutes KPI’sSOURCES International journal publications ARWU, ECUR, NESQA, TRF, etc International journal publications ARWU, CHE, NESQA, TRF, etc per faculty member Citations ARWU, ECUR, etc Citations per faculty member ARWU, THES, etc Impact factors ECUR, TRF, etc Impact factors per faculty member TRF, etc Major awards, e.g. Nobel prizes RWU, etc Peer review of publications RAE, etc

  12. TRF Pilot Academic Research Assessment at School Level, year 2005: • Rationale • Research indicators included output and impact research indices • They were reproducible by the assessors and the volunteered schools. • Steering committee was neutral and acceptable nationally.

  13. Assessment Procedure: • Steering committee comprised distinguished professors in various academic disciplines, representatives from research funding agencies such as CHE, NSTDA, NRCT, etc. and TRF as coordinator. • Pilot assessment in 2005, covered about 80 volunteered schools in science and technology.

  14. Assessment Procedure (cont.): • 3 research output and impact indices included no. of • equivalent international journal publications per school • and also per faculty member and impact factor per • faculty member of the school. • 5 quality profiles were international (5, excellent), regional (4, very good), national (3, good), local (2, fair) and to be improved (1).

  15. TRF Weights of Journals published in Thailand:  International journals with impact factor = 1.00Regional journals = 0.75 National journal = 0.50 Local journals = 0.25 Unclassified Thai journals = 0.125

  16. RESEARCH ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES Research Assessment Exercise, RAE, UK: First enforced by PM Margaret Thatcher in 1986 for fair distribution of UK government research fund to academic disciplines. 6th RAE, the latest one in 2008, covered 68 different academic disciplines in 159 H.E. institutes. Journals publications submitted by academic staff were reviewed by more than 1,000 distinguished professors approved by all UK institutes of H.E. 5 quality profiles were world-class, internationally excellent, recognized internationally, recognized nationally and unclassified qualities.

  17. Research Excellence Frame work, REF 2014, UK: • More quantitative approach such as publications, citations, competitive research grants, patents, etc. will be employed in addition to peer review • Pilot universities are required before the implementation in 2014.

  18. TRF Assessment of Academic Disciplines, 2006-2007:  4 research indices include the above 3 indices and total impact factor of each discipline International, regional and national patents are also included and weighted by CHE/TRF Five quality profiles are retained as in the previous assessment by TRF. TRF will provide extra research grants to the academic disciplines after the assessment The research indices can be verified by the volunteered disciplines.

  19. Steering Committees for Groups of Academic Disciplines: • Steering committees are set up for 6 groups of academic disciplines, namely agricultural sciences and technology, engineering, health science, medicine multidisciplinary technologies and natural sciences. • Members of all steering committees are professors distinguished by research performances

  20. Major Results of the Assessment: •  About 10, 18 and 28% of all academic disciplines are rated international quality(5), regional quality (4) and national quality(3) respectively. • Several academic disciplines rated regional quality (4) including two private international Thai university are not in the national research universities as rated by CHE. • Several disciplines of CHE national research universities are rated below national quality, 3. Mahidol University has the highest no. of academic disciplines rated 5.

  21. The above results again confirm that • CHE rating of Thai research universities is not suitable for FAIR distribution of research funding.

  22. IMPACTS from the Research Assessment of Academic Disciplines: • Better distributions of research funding at all research quality profiles namely international, regional, national and local • Clear information for students to select suitable academic disciplines for their studies especially at post- graduate levels • Clear information for awarding government scholarships on graduates studies • Clear information for customers of research services given by academic disciplines.

  23. Thank you Prida Wibulswas

More Related