Search

The transformations characterizing the Italian university and research system reproduce a constant oscillation between autonomy and responsibility. A new pathway has been paved with the introduction of evaluation and the creation of an agency with a specific mandate for managing it, the National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR). The process of institutional creation has given rise to a new postbureaucratic model, inspired by independence and professionalism principles. Specific organizational devices have been implemented to this aim, such as the appointment procedures of the agency's Governing Board as well as the introduction of a new officer profile, the technical officer for evaluation, working side by side administrative staff, to serve the evaluation scope. In this paper, the agency's organizational model will be analysed, together with the main characteristics and the principles of the agency in the framework of the Italian university and research system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a research design for the evaluation of the Third Mission in the university context. Given the consulting processes as intermediate outcome mechanisms, the article reports a common theoretical framework that considers the Third Mission as a strategic process integrated, top down and bottom up, with Teaching-Research- Impact/Valorisation of Research, rather than as a isolated and stratified element within the university organization chart. Comparing three different evaluation models, the article finally suggests a set of indicators useful and usable to assure an integrated Third Mission evaluation practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The results of the Italian Quality Research Assessment VQR 2004-10 in the area of Sociology were characterized by the scarcity of excellent ratings and a lack of consensus among referees. These two aspects, which affected the assessment of all social sciences and humanities, descend directly from the use of the peer review as a method of evaluation. As a matter of fact, peer review, although irreplaceable, poses different issues on which critical thinking is needed. In this paper, I aim to contribute to this discussion. Firstly, I focus on the system framework, i.e. an assessment exercise where in total almost 200,000 scientific publications from universities and research institutes have been analyzed. Then, the rules of the game have been reviewed and also the specific characters of the macro-area "14" where Sociology is located. The judgments formulated by the referees and the level of inter-rater agreement were descriptively considered, considering the main features of the referees, the publications and the authors. Finally, some possible interpretations are outlined together with recommendations for future improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]