Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields (2000) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Methodology
2 Methodology
Pages 9-12
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
They might or might not be asked to assess quality relative to world standards, to identify the key determinants of research performance, or to assess the future performance of research programs. The latter exercises, however, are integral to international benchmarking and require experts who have a broad understanding of a field as a whole and knowledge of the researchers who are most influential in that field.
|
From page 10... ...
· Panel members should focus on the accomplishments of researchers in the field, not on funding levels, as indicators of leadership and they should consider the development of human resources as a component of leadership; for example, if all the interesting research in a country is being done by senior researchers, that country might lack sufficient young researchers to develop accomplishments in the future. 2.2 Specific Charge to the Panels In particular, COSEPUP charged each panel to answer three ques tions: 1.
|
From page 11... ...
They sought multinational viewpoints to enhance objectivity and reduce national bias. For example, the immunology panel selected "up-and-coming leaders as well as established ones, investigators from all over the world, and leaders of all sub-subfields, both basic and clinical" to "incorporate the opinions of a variety of respected members of the immunology community." Membership from industrial firms was deemed essential to provide perspective on the work of leading industrial researchers and on the ultimate utility of research to developmental and manufacturing processes on which firms depend.
|
From page 12... ...
The reviewers, chosen to represent diverse industrial and academic backgrounds, provided invaluable commentary and criticism for use by the panels and a means of validating the panels' findings. Among the topics proposed for further discussion were the use of benchmarking during the budgetary process and whether benchmarking would be useful in helping to set national science policy.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.