[Oa-italia] L'opposizione in Australia contesta i criteri di valutazione della ricerca

Susanna Mornati mornati a cilea.it
Mar 19 Giu 2007 09:25:45 CEST

giro alla lista un messaggio di Arthur Sale sulla posizione dell'opposizione
australiana ai criteri di valutazione adottati dal RQF (equivalente al RAE
britannico e alla nostra VTR CIVR).
Chi puo' dire se dopo il primo esperimento riusciremo a pensare ad un modello
diverso? Spesso in Italia reinventiamo la ruota, ma nei pochi casi in 
cui si copia,
si copia il peggio ?!?
Auguriamo successo al progetto australiano, sempre che i proponenti vincano
le elezioni, e possibilmente avremo qualcosa di meglio da copiare.

Susanna Mornati

Date:    Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:35:49 +1000
From:    Arthur Sale <ahjs a OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Australian Opposition metrics

The Australian Opposition has announced that should they win office in a
federal election to be held later this year, they will scrap the
Government's planned RQF process (based on peer panels and the UK's RAE),
and replace it by a metric-based quality assessment. An extract from the
Shadow Minister's speech follows.

Arthur Sale

"In this regard, Labor has announced that, in Government, we will be
scrapping the Howard Government's Research Quality Framework. The RQF
process is cumbersome, costly and threatens to become incredibly
time-consuming. It is neither an efficient nor a transparent way to allocate
valuable research dollars to universities.

In its planned "Impact" measure, the Government's RQF would skew funds away
from quality research and distort outcomes. A scheme that emphasises this
measure moves Australia away from current world best practice, and that is
something we cannot afford.

The Productivity Commission, in the report that came out today, is also wary
about reliance on the Impact measure in the RQF.

In general terms, the PC has held its line that the RQF is seriously
problematic. It clearly disagrees with the Government. It stresses that the
cost of implementing the RQF "may well exceed the benefits." Its summation
on how things stand is little short of damning.

Labor will work hand in hand with researchers, and their institutions, to
develop a research quality assurance framework that is world's best
practice. It will be metrics based. It will be transparent. It will take due
account of differences between disciplines and discipline groups so that
measures are fair, and funding can flow equitably."

Susanna Mornati, CILEA
Project Leader AEPIC, www.aepic.it
+39 348 7090 226, mailto:mornati a cilea.it

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that
of the author alone, and does not necessarily
reflect the opinion or policy of the employer.

Maggiori informazioni sulla lista OA-Italia