research quality assessment 2001 2006 organisation studies ... · oldendorff research institute,...

R. Braam secr. cie Groenewegen HRS & OS 3-3-2011

1

Research Quality Assessment 2001 – 2006

Organisation Studies

&

Human Resource Studies

Oldendorff Research Institute

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

Tilburg University

Tilburg

November 2008


2

Report of the Evaluation Committee for Research Quality Assessment

2001 – 2006

Organisation Studies and Human Resource Studies

Oldendorff Research Institute

Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences

Tilburg University

November 2008

©

Tilburg University

Warandelaan 2

P.O. Box 90153

5000 LE Tilburg

The Netherlands

Telephone +31 13 466 91 11


3

Preface

The Evaluation Committee was assigned the task of performing an assessment of the research

quality of two research programs from the Oldendorff Research Institute of the Faculty of Social

and Behavioural Sciences, one in Organisation Studies, the other in Human Research Studies.

Experts from the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, joined the committee to cover

the research areas of the two programs and management of the Oldendorff Research Institute.

Assessing quality is difficult, but the excellent preparation of our visit by the institute and by the

directors and members of the programmes made it possible to fulfil our task well. The

committee worked as a team, the members were very open to each other‟s arguments and have

taken all decisions unanimously. Because we only had one day for the site visit we had to be

well prepared and work efficiently. This was made possible by the excellent support of the

secretary of the committee. I wish to thank the members of the committee and the secretary very

much for their constructive cooperation. Also, I want to thank the directors and members of the

institute and the programs in particular, for their adequate information and open discussions that

were crucial for the committee to perform our task.

Prof. John Groenewegen

Chairman to the Committee


4

Structure of this report

The Evaluation Committee assessed the research and management quality of the programme

in Organisation Studies (OS) and the programme in Human Resource Studies (HRS) within

the Oldendorff Research Institute of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FSBS)

of Tilburg University.

In Chapter 1, a short introduction is given to the Netherlands System of Quality Assessment

of Research, and the composition committee as well as committee‟s ways of working are

explained.

In Chapter 2, the Committee presents her assessment of the quality of research management

of the Oldendorff Research Institute and of the research and management of the research

programme in Organisation Studies (OS) and the research programme in Human Resource

Studies (HRS).


5

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research ............... 6

1.2 The Review Committee .................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Scope of the Assessment .................................................................................................. 7

1.4 Data provided to the Committee ...................................................................................... 8

1.5 Procedures followed by the Committee ........................................................................... 8

1.6 Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale ..................................................................... 9

2 The Oldendorff Research Institute .................................................................................... 11

2.1 Assessment of the Institute ............................................................................................. 11

2.2 Assessment per programme ........................................................................................... 13

Appendix 2: Aspects of the Assessment ................................................................... 18

Appendix 2: Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee .................. 24

Appendix 3: Programme of the site visit ................................................................. 27


6

1 Introduction

1.1 The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research

This evaluation of research is part of the national evaluation system for publicly funded

research in the Netherlands, and is performed according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol

2003-2009 for Public Research Organisations (SEP)1.

The national evaluation system aims at three objectives regarding research and research

management:

Improvement of the quality of research through an assessment carried out according

to international standards of quality and relevance;

Improvement of research management and leadership;

Accountability to higher levels of the research organisations and funding agencies,

government, and society at large.

The evaluation system is a combination of retrospective and prospective analysis, held every

three years, alternating as an internal and external evaluation, prepared by the self-evaluations

by the institutes on the basis of a yearly data included in a monitoring system.

The assessment takes place at the level of research institutes and research programmes. The

research institutes submit a description of the results that have been achieved in each research

programme during the previous six years, including quantitative data about staff input, key

publications and lists of published output, a short outline of the „mission‟ statement of each

programme, and developments in the context of the research profile of the faculty or institute.

Important in the assessments are interviews to be held by the Review Committee with the

research institute management, programme leaders, members and related PhD‟s-students.

The Executive Board of Tilburg University commissioned this evaluation of the research

programme in Organisation Studies and Innovation (OS) and the programme in Human

Resource Studies (HRS) at the Oldendorff Research Institute of the Faculty of Social and

Behavioural Sciences. The period under review is 2001-2006. Various aspects of the

programmes as they took place in 2007 are also included, as important changes in the

research programmes of the past years begin to become visible in 2007. The board of the

faculty is interested in an evaluation from an international perspective, and asked the

committee to provide a proper insight in the international standing of the research groups.

In accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 1993 -2009), and looking at the

requests from the board, the tasks of the appointed evaluation committee were:

To assess the quality of research, research management of the institute on the basis

of the information provided by the institute and through interviews;

1 Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003-2009 For Public Research Organisations, VSNU, NWO, KNAW, January 2003, ISBN: 90-5588 278x


7

To advise how this quality might be improved, with special attention to the

international standing of the research groups performing the programmes.

The board of the Oldendorff Institute appointed a secretary to the committee, assisting in

preparing the institute visit and the committee evaluation report containing the findings, in

accordance with requirements from the SEP-protocol.

The committee was asked to held interviews with faculty board members, management of the

Oldendorff Research Institute, programme leaders, researchers and PhD students of the

programmes, during a visit at the campus of Tilburg University in September 2008.

1.2 The Review Committee

The composition of the Review Committee, as appointed by the Board of the Tilburg University

was, in alphabetical order, was as follows:

Chair:

Prof. John Groenewegen (Delft University of Technology, Delft);

Members:

Prof. Joseph Lampel (City University, London);

Prof. Jörg Sydow (Freie Universität, Berlin);

Prof. John Purcell (University of Warwick, Coventry);

Prof. Philip Dewe (Birkbeck University of London, London)

Secretary:

Dr. Robert Braam was appointed secretary to the Committee.

A short curriculum vitae of the Committee members is included in Appendix 2.

Independence

All members of the Committee signed a statement of independence during the visit in Tilburg, to

ensure that they assess the quality of the Oldendorff institute and the research programmes in

Organisation Studies and Human Resource Studies in an authoritative, critical and independent

way. The committee as a whole decided and agreed upon all assessments made for both the

institute and the two research programmes.

1.3 Scope of the Assessment

The assessment covers the research at the Oldendorff Research Institute in the programmes

Organisation Studies (OS) and Human Resource Studies (HRS), of the Faculty of Social and


8

Behavioural Sciences. of Tilburg University. The period of assessment is 2001-2006, while

information on recent developments (2007) has been taken into account as much as possible.

1.4 Data provided to the Committee

The Committee has received a detailed self-evaluation report consisting of three separate

reports:

- Self-Evaluation Report 2001-2006, Human Resource Studies (HRS), Faculty of Social

and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, June 2008. Part A: The Oldendorff

Research Institute; Part B: The research programme HRS;

- Self-Evaluation Report 2001-2006, Organisation Studies (OS), Faculty of Social and

Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, June 2008. Part A: The Oldendorff Research

Institute; Part B: The research programme OS;

In addition, the Committee received the following information:

- Five key-publications from the programme HRS

- Five key-publications from the programme OS

During the site visit additional reference material (partly in Dutch) was available and made

accessible to the Committee members during the site visit in September 2008.

The documentation included all the information required by the SEP-Protocol.

1.5 Procedures followed by the Committee

The Committee proceeded according to the SEP-Protocol. The assessments are based on the

documentation provided by the institutes, the key publications of each programme as well as

further publications on display, the interviews and discussions between the committee and

members of the faculty board, Institute management, programme leaders, researchers and PhD

students. The committee held a preparatory meeting on September 18th, and interviews and

discussions took place during the site visit at September 19th, 2008 (see Appendix 3).

The Committee members all read the self-evaluation reports as well as the five key-publications

of each programme. Preliminary programme assessments by the committee members were made

using the SEP-checklist for internal committee use (see Appendix 4 of the SEP). These

preliminary assessments were presented to the committee chair and secretary, who compiled an

overview for the committee members at the preparatory meeting.

The committee was welcomed by the Dean of the Faculty before its preparatory meeting on

September 18th. The Committee had the opportunity to meet with the Dean of the Faculty and

the Vice-Dean for Research at a committee diner on September 18th, 2008.


9

Preceding the site visit, the Committee discussed how to proceed in, and assign tasks for, each of

the interviews. The Committee members discussed the results of the preliminary assessments

and other relevant material, in its preparatory meeting on September 18th 2008.

The following day, September 19th, the Committee was welcomed at the campus site by the

dean and vice dean of the faculty, and held meetings and interviews with the faculty board and

institute management, programme leaders, researchers and PhD students of both research

programmes, in consecutive meetings throughout the day. At the end of the day, after internal

deliberations, the committee presented its first impressions and findings.

The committee worked on a first draft report on the evaluation outcomes for the Institute and the

two programmes by the chair, appointed committee members, and assisted by the committee

secretary. The draft was then circulated among the members of the Committee. The Chairman of

the Committee included comments and changes so that all members of the Committee could

finally agree upon the draft version. The same applied to the Introduction.

The final draft version of the report was sent to the Institute Board for factual corrections and

comments, which were in return received in good order and handled by the committee, in

order to produce the final report and send it to the Faculty Board‟s vice Dean of research.

1.6 Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale

The Standard Evaluation Protocol requires the Review Committee to assess the research on

the following four main aspects:

Quality (international recognition and innovative potential)

Productivity (scientific output)

Relevance (scientific and socio-economic impact)

Vitality and feasibility (flexibility, management, and leadership)

The Review Committee ratings for the research programmes assessed are: Excellent (5);

Very good (4); Good (3); Satisfactory (2); Unsatisfactory (1). A description of the five-point

scale used is included in Appendix 1.

The Committee also assessed the management aspects of both the institute and research

programmes, based on the following aspects, according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol:

Leadership

Mission and goals

Strategy and policy

Adequacy of resources

Funding policies

Facilities

Academic reputation of the institute

Societal relevance of the institute

Balance of strengths and weaknesses of the institute / research programme


10

Using the above research quality criteria and the listed managerial aspects, the committee

acquired a comprehensive picture of the performance of the research institute and the

research programmes.

The results of the assessments of management aspects are given in the text of the report for

the Institute as a whole, and for the separate programmes wherever the committee found this

relevant. No separate ratings are given for these management aspects.


11

2 The Oldendorff Research Institute

The Oldendorff Research Institute is part of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of

Tilburg University.

Management:

Vice dean research: prof. dr. A.J.R.van de Vijver

Manager research institute: dr. A. Heinen

2.1 Assessment of the Institute

In our evaluation it should be taken into account that our judgement is only based on two of

the five research programs that the institutes holds: Human Resource Studies and

Organisation Studies. Further, it must be noted that the Evaluation Committee was

specifically asked to evaluate „from an international perspective‟.

Characterisation of the institute

The institute mainly sees its function as facilitating the work of the individual researchers and

the program leaders. The institute does in no way interfere with the content of the programs.

“The research institute has never tried to establish a scientific reputation of its own.

The reputation of the institute is largely derived from the reputation of the constituent

programs.”2

The following facilitating tasks should be mentioned:

- New rules of the game were introduced to allocate research time and guarantee

research time; the criteria shifted from the productivity to a focus on quality. The

quality is mainly related to the scores in ISI journals.

- The two-year research master, that received accreditation in 2004, is an important

instrument to identify and select PhD-students

- the PhD-courses offered to the PhD‟s

- Facilitation of the functioning of the PhD council

- Formal monitoring of the progress of the PhD‟s research.

Performance of the institute

The committee remarks that the research at the FSBS has been reinvigorated after the

restructuring in the late 1990s. The Oldendorff Institute played an important role in this

change from a relatively teaching-oriented faculty towards a more research-oriented faculty.

In the transition towards a more research-oriented faculty the institute developed a clear set

of rules that stimulates its staff to focus on research and to publish in quality journals. The

committee noticed that the criteria for quality are largely reduced to the one-dimensional

measure of numbers of articles in ISI-listed journals, while other quality journals may and do

exist.

2 Quote from Self-evaluation report, Part A, p.19.


12

The committee concludes that the role of the institute in the transition has been very

effective, but that for the future a more nuanced approach is needed.

Future of the institute

With respect to the future the committee would like to make the following remarks:

- The committee has been informed about the existence of a faculty committee that

will advise about a possible revision of the system of research evaluation and

allocation of research time. Because the changes are crucial for all individual

researchers and all program leaders the committee recommends to compose the

committee and to organise its work in such a way that all groups in the faculty feel

recognised and well represented;

- The committee thinks that more attention needs to be paid to the variety of the

different research programs. For some programs the ISI-list of journals gives a

good representation of quality journals in the field, but for other programs top

journals do not appear in the ISI list, whereas the research community does not

consider all ISI journals to be top quality. The committee recommends making a

ranking of journals based on the evaluation of the research community.

- The committee recommends, next to the productivity in terms of numbers of

articles, books, etc., that the institute should develop criteria to measure the

societal relevance of research in the programmes. In relation to this, the

committee also recommends to reconsider the role of so-called third stream

funding (funds from contract research). The committee agrees that contract

research should be distinguished from consultancy, but the contacts with the

business community, labour unions and political organisations are extremely

important for access to data and case material. Moreover, feed back form the

societal community is crucial for formulating relevant research questions. Last but

not least, the funds are vital for the financing of PhD‟s and post-docs. The People

Management Centre of the HRS program is a case in point.

- In the transition towards a more research oriented faculty the evaluation criteria

are focused at individual level. The committee thinks it questionable whether

measuring of individual productivity gives the right incentives for quality research

at group and institute level. In the Self-evaluation reports this question is

rightfully raised and the committee recommends developing criteria at group level

to evaluate the quality of the research. Among the group members a degree of

specialisation can take place. Of course evaluation at individual level is always

needed for the individual career planning.

- With the introduction of guaranteed research time the tension between research

and education has become more visible. Although the situation has substantially

improved, this tension should always be a matter of attention to the management

of the institution.

- Because the raising of additional funding is crucial for the programs to finance

PhD‟s and Post-docs, programs have to become more successful in applying for

second stream funds (NWO). The committee thinks the institute is in position to

play a more active role in supporting the researchers in writing research proposals.


13

2.2 Assessment per programme

The Committee has carried out an assessment at the level of the programmes, as defined by

the Institute. In this chapter the Committee presents its assessment per programme.

The Committee assessed the following research programmes for the period 2001 - 2006:

1. Human Resource Studies

2. Organisation Studies

The committee assessments relate to the older programmes, for which the self-evaluation

reports 2001 – 2006, including the information on developments in 2007, and information

and discussions held during the site visit in September 2008.

About the two research programs in general: - The committee is impressed by the performance of both programs in such a short

period of time. The leadership of the programs has been able to appoint a young team

of researchers and to establish a very positive research climate, in which the

individual researchers feel motivated to invest and to cooperate.

- The faculty has limited funds available to finance PhDs (6 per year to be divided over

the five programs). To raise additional funds in especially the so-called second stream

(NWO) is a must and strongly stimulated by the institute.


14

Programme 1 HRS: Human Resources Studies

Programme director: Prof. dr. J. Paauwe and Prof. dr. R. Poell

Academic staff in 2006: 4.86 fte (2007: 5.47 fte)

Assessment: Quality : 4

Productivity : 4

Relevance : 5

Vitality and feasibility : 4

Title of programme

Human Resource Management and Performance: In search of balance (2005 – present)

Former title: Human Resources Practices: Multiple Actors and Multiple Levels (2003-2005)

Management

The committee thinks the programme has been and is managed excellently. The arrival of the

current director in late 2005 transformed Human Resource Studies with energetic and directed

leadership. This led to a number of excellent appointments; a new focus on „Human Resource

Management and Performance: in search of balance‟; the forging of impressive links with

leading institutions in the field in the USA and the UK especially, including two excellent

visiting professorships with a requirement to be active members of the programme and not just

figure heads; and the gaining of international research funds. In the process a unified and

inclusive body of academics and PhD-students work collaboratively in developing a distinct

approach to the subject.

Quality (4 = very good)

The committee marks that even in the short period of just under three years the Human Resource

programme has established a high international reputation and is recognised as either the leading

or one of two leading Dutch institutions in the field. It has pioneered a distinctive and original

approach to the subject setting HRM in its societal context – the social embeddedness of HRM.

This informs the whole of the varied programmes in the area and has led to a distinctive number

of publications. At the same time the programme has sought to engage with the practitioner

community to ensure the relevance of what it does while being careful to avoid letting this slip

into consultancy. This provides a source of funding, access for Masters and PhD students to

engage in research but most of all links what is an applied subject to real world practice. The

focus on third stream funding is appropriate for this programme and is of no less value than

second stream funding. The committee thinks this directly attributable to the role of the director

and his extensive contacts at the highest levels in employing organisations, trade unions and

government departments.

Productivity (4= very good)

Given the short period the programme has been in existence in its current form, and the fact that

papers in quality journals can take from 18 months from submission to publication, the output of

the staff is very good. While beyond the formal scope of the review, the publications already


15

achieved in 2008, with many „in press‟ in leading journals, is a strong indication of a rising

trajectory.

The programme has suffered from two limitations which are not of its making. First, it has been

limited to the number of PhDs it can accept and all, including the current PhD students, wish to

move to a situation where there is one PhD per member of staff. There is good reason for a

greater investment in PhDs in this expanding and internationally recognised programme.

Second, the programme has suffered from the points system for publications, which gives a

strong priority to ISI journals. In the field of HRM some of the leading journals in Europe have

yet to achieve ISI recognition. This is especially true of journals, which tend to focus on HRM

and performance. If staff authors wish to make an impact and develop their international

reputation they must publish in this journal but to do so is punished by the focus on ISI

recognised journals. At the same time some ISI accredited journals in the field have a low

reputation and a low impact factor. It is possible to assess the impact factor of both ISI and non

ISI journals and it would be sensible for a more nuanced list of international journal rankings to

be produced.

Relevance (5 = excellent)

HRM research, especially that related to performance and strategy is dominated by Anglo-

American academics whose focus is on single firm behaviour and with outcome measures

associated with share holder value and „the bottom line‟. The Tilburg HRM programme has

pioneered a distinctive approach at odds with the prevailing research paradigms by looking at

three levels – the individual, the organisational and the societal. This was a daring move for a

new group of researchers and academics but it is now widely recognised and applauded, often

cited with enthusiasm. Of course, it helps that the tide is beginning to flow in the same direction

seen for example in debates about varieties of capitalism but within the field of HRM the

Tilburg programme was among the very first to develop this line of thinking, research and

debate and a number of highly influential publications have flowed from this.

Vitality and feasibility (4 = very good)

The programme exhibits high levels of vitality seen in the way staff interact with each other and

develop a collective ethos and approach. At present therefore it has very good vitality and

feasibility. It may be harder to sustain this as the group grows bigger, as it needs to consolidate

its early achievements. It is inevitable, too, that a successful group of this sort with only two full

professors is the envy of others and it can be expected that a number of Associated professors

and some assistant professors will have attractive job offers from elsewhere in Europe and the

Anglo American world in the years to come.

Overall remarks

The panel members were unanimous in their evaluation of the HRM programme.


16

Programme 2 OS: Organisation Studies

Programme director: Prof. dr. M. Meeus and Prof. dr. P. Kenis.

Academic staff in 2006: 8.37 fte (2007: 8,19 fte)

Assessment: Quality : 4-5

Productivity : 4

Relevance : 4

Viability and feasibility : 4

Programme title:

Relational perspectives on adaptive organizations

Management

The committee thinks the management of the program is very good to excellent. It has become

clear to the committee that the programme underwent a significant transformation since its last

evaluation. This was achieved through highly astute recruiting of top research personnel and

thereafter attention to motivating the staff, and by the formation of high-quality international

networks. Dynamic leadership was crucial for overseeing and facilitating this transformation.

The programme now exhibits exceptional cohesion for an academic area, working together

and focusing their efforts to achieve excellent results.

The committee thinks that key to the programme‟s accomplishments has been the

development of a „relational perspective‟ and project-based organizing („ temporary

organizations‟) as identity framing to focus resources and enhance collaboration.

The programme faces a number of challenges in the coming years. In a highly competitive

international environment it is advisable to increase emphasis on top journals (ISI and other)

in order to maintain and raise standards. The programme must capitalize on internal strengths

to create greater external visibility around programme themes, to maintain the current

momentum. The increase of external visibility is important to maintain group commitment

and improve resource recruitment.

It is also important for the programme to continue to refine and define its core research

programme. The „relational approach‟ was the central focus to the transformation until

recently. An emphasis on “Temporary Organizations” unifies the group, but given current

research output a more appropriate term would be “Temporary Systems‟. Notwithstanding

the term, it is important that research activities are consistent with the label the programme

will use, in order to create external visibility and internal cohesion.

The committee thinks the Research Masters programs successfully serves the goals of the

Organization Studies, but that opportunities should be created to explore synergies and joint

actions with the Human Resources program goals (e.g. around temporary organizations).

Given the achieved situation and perspectives the committee has come to the following scores.


17

Quality (4-5 = very good to excellent)

The quality of the publication is very good. The program targets ISI journals, and has reasonable

success with top journals as well. In addition, the publications have attracted attention and are

cited internationally.

Productivity (4 = very good)

The productivity is very good. There is continuous production of publishable papers that makes

it into ISI journals. The program maintains a robust „pipeline‟ with a focus on collaborative

work within the group.

Relevance (4 = very good)

The relevance of the work undertaken by the program is high (very good). The focus on

temporary systems is of considerable importance to managers and to policy makers in the

current dynamic if not turbulent environment confronting organizations and governments alike.

Vitality and feasibility (4 = very good)

The vitality and feasibility of the program is very good. The program has made considerable

strides since it was last evaluated. The group is highly motivated, well led, and ambitious.

Provided that it keeps up the current momentum, it has every prospect of transforming current

plans into feasible execution.

Overall remarks

The panel members were unanimous in their evaluation of the OS programme.


18

Appendix 2: Aspects of the Assessment

According to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) the following checklists and five-point

scale for ratings of research quality have been used. The committee has applied the checklists

for internal use only.

Preliminary assessment

(Only for internal use by the committee) Reviewer …...........

Institute name: Oldendorff Research Institute

vice-dean research: prof.dr. F. van de Vijver

management: dr. T. Heinen

5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory

Institute (see also section 3.7 SEP)

How do you evaluate the Institute with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1 1. Leadership 2. Mission and goals 3. Strategy and policy 4. Adequacy of the resources 5. Funding policies 6. Facilities 7. Academic reputation of the institute 8. Societal relevance of the institute 9. Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the Istitute Overall assessment of the institute

Remarks and questions:


19



Programme title (short): Human Resource Sciences

(director: prof.dr. J. Paauwe)


Research Programme

How do you evaluate the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1 1. Leadership 2. Mission and goals 3. Strategy and policy 4. Adequacy of the resources 5. Funding policies 6. Facilities 7. Academic reputation 8. Societal relevance 9. Balance of the strengths and weaknesses Overall

Quality

How do you evaluate the quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1 1. originality of the approach and ideas 2. significance of the contribution to the field 3. coherence of the programme 4. publication strategy 5. prominence of the programme director 6. prominence of the other members of the research group 7. quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 8. quality of other results Overall assessment of quality


20

Productivity

Considering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the

productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1

1. number of PhD-theses 2. number of scientific publications 3. number of professional publications 4. other results (if applicable) 4. distribution of published output within the group Overall assessment of productivity

Relevance

Considering the stated mission of this programme, how do you

evaluate the relevance of the research with respect to 5 4 3 2 1

1. the advancement of knowledge 2. the dissemination of knowledge 3. the implementation of knowledge Overall assessment of relevance

Prospects (Vitality and feasibility)

Considering the present status and future developments (if known)

of staff and facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability

of the programme 5 4 3 2 1

1. in view of the past scientific performance 2. in view of future plans and ideas 3. in view of staff age and mobility Overall assessment of vitality


21



Programme title (short): Organisation Studies

(director: prof.dr. P. Kenis)


Research Programme

How do you evaluate the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1 1. Leadership 2. Mission and goals 3. Strategy and policy 4. Adequacy of the resources 5. Funding policies 6. Facilities 7. Academic reputation 8. Societal relevance 9. Balance of the strengths and weaknesses Overall

Quality

How do you evaluate the quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1 1. originality of the approach and ideas 2. significance of the contribution to the field 3. coherence of the programme 4. publication strategy 5. prominence of the programme director 6. prominence of the other members of the research group 7. quality of scientific publications (scientific impact)

8. quality of other results

Overall assessment of quality


22

Productivity

Considering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the

productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 1

1. number of PhD-theses

2. number of scientific publications

3. number of professional publications

4. other results (if applicable)

4. distribution of published output within the group

Overall assessment of productivity

Relevance

Considering the stated mission of this programme, how do you

evaluate the relevance of the research with respect to 5 4 3 2 1

1. the advancement of knowledge

2. the dissemination of knowledge

3. the implementation of knowledge

Overall assessment of relevance

Prospects (Vitality and feasibility)

Considering the present status and future developments (if known)

of staff and facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability

of the programme

5 4 3 2 1

1. in view of the past scientific performance

2. in view of future plans and ideas

3. in view of staff age and mobility

Overall assessment of vitality


23

Appendix 1: Aspects of the Assessment (continued)

The Five-Point Scale

The five-point scale used in the assessment is described in the Standard Evaluation Protocol

as follows:

5 Excellent Work that is at the forefront internationally, and which most likely will

have an important and substantial impact in the field. Institute is

considered an international leader.

4 Very Good Work that is internationally competitive and is expected to make a

significant contribution; nationally speaking at the forefront in the

field. Institute is considered international player, national leader.

3 Good Work that is competitive at the national level and will probably make a

valuable contribution in the international field. Institute is considered

internationally visible and a national player.

2 Satisfactory Work that is solid but not exciting, will add to our understanding and is

in principle worthy of support. It is considered of less priority than

work in the above categories. Institute is nationally visible.

1 Unsatisfactory Work that is neither solid nor exciting, flawed in the scientific and or

technical approach, repetitions of other work, etc. Work not worthy of

pursuing.


24

Appendix 2: Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee

Committee chair:

Prof. John Groenewegen

John Groenewegen is professor of Economics of Infrastructures at the Department of

Infrastructure Systems & Services, of the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, at

Delft University of Technology (TU Delft).

John Groenewegen joined the section Economics of Infrastructures at the Delft University of

Technology in 2004 He specialised in the Economics of Organisation and Asian Economics.

He was appointed in Rotterdam as full professor of Institutional Economics in 1999 and in

the same year accepted a chair at the University of Utrecht in Comparative Institutional

Analysis; the Dutch and French economic systems compared. He presently teaches

Institutional Design in Delft, institutional economics at the Rotterdam School of Economics

as well as managerial economics at the Rotterdam School of Management, and the

methodology of economics at the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE). He

is a research fellow of the Tinbergen Institute (TI) of the Rotterdam School of Economics. He

is General Secretary of the council of the European Association for Evolutionary Political

Economy (EAEPE), secretary of the Foundation of the Journal of Institutional Economics,

secretary of the Foundation of Evolutionary Economics Development (FEED), president of

the Board of the Dutch-Belgian Association of Political and Institutional Economics (APIE)

and member of the board of Trustees (Past-President) of the Association for Evolutionary

Economics. He is founding director of the research foundation GRASP. He is past president

of the American Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE) and at the moment

member of the Board of Trustees of that association. He is referee of several journals.

Committee members

Prof. Joseph Lampel

Joseph Lampel is Professor of Strategy, Faculty of Management, Cass Business School

London.

Joseph Lampel obtained an undergraduate degree in Physics from McGill University,

Canada, and a MSc in Technology Policy at the Institut d'Histoire et Sociopolitique des

Sciences at Université de Montréal, Canada. After working for the Science Council of

Canada and the Ontario government he returned to McGill University to study Strategic

Management. His dissertation "Strategy in Thin Industries" won a Best Dissertation Award.

Joseph Lampel has been with Cass since 2002. He is the author with Henry Mintzberg and

Bruce Ahlstrand of the "Strategy Safari", (Free Press 'Prentice-Hall). He is also the editor

with Henry Mintzberg, James Brian Quinn, and Sumantra Ghoshal of the fourth edition of

The Strategy Process , Prentice-Hall, and editor, with Theresa Lant and Jamal Shamsie of the

http://bunhill.city.ac.uk/research/cassexperts.nsf/(expertsbyFaculty)?OpenView&faculty=Faculty%20of%20Management


25

The Business of Culture: Emerging Perspectives on Cultural Industries, Lawrence-Erlbaum

(2005). Joseph has published in several management and technology journals and magazines.

He also is editor of several Special Issues in Organization Science, e.g. on “Learning from

Rare Events”, the Journal of Management Studies, and in the Journal of Project Management.

Prior to arriving at Cass, Joseph Lampel was Assistant Professor at the Stern School of

Business, New York University. Subsequently he was Reader at the University of St.

Andrews, and Professor of Strategic Management at University of Nottingham Business

School. He has also taught at McGill University, Concordia University, Montreal, and the

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Joseph regularly works with top management teams in the area of strategy, project-based

learning, and business innovation. He also is a regular invited guest on TV channel programs.

Prof. Dr. Jörg Sydow

Jörg Sydow is professor of Management at the Institute for Management of the Free

University of Berlin, Germany.

Jörg Sydows‟s academic Background started with the Study of Business Administration and

Management Science at the Free University of Berlin (Dipl-Kfm.) and at the Imperial

College of Science & Technology, London (M.Sc.) Jörg got his Ph.D. and habilitation at the

Free University of Berlin. He was professor of Business Administration at the University of

Wuppertal and later on professor of Management at the free university of Berlin (Chair). He

also was visiting research scholar at the Department of Management, Bentley College in

Boston, Mass, and visiting Professor at Vienna Business University, the University of

Innsbruck (1999/00) and University of Arizona. He was member and chairman of the board

of the German Industrial Relations Association, and head of the scientific advisory board,

German Competence Network, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology. He

was spokesperson of the doctoral program (research on path dependencies), and International

Visiting Fellow, at the Advanced Institute for Management Research (AIM), London. Also,

he was member of the scientific advisory board of the Sociology Research Institute,

University of Göttingen. Since 2008 he is invited professor at The Business Graduate School

of the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Jörg is founder and editorial board member and

reviewer of several journals both in German and English.

Prof. John Purcell

John Purcell is Research Professor – IRRU Industrial Relations Research Unit Warwick

Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

His Research interests are in performance measurement and management; and in

improvement and innovation, for both private and public sector. John began his career at

Perkins Engines, then at Commission on Industrial Relations 1996-73. At Manchester

Business School 1974-81, Oxford University 1981-95, and University of Bath from 1974-


26

2007. He was Strategic Academic Adviser on Employment Relations at ACAS and a deputy

chairman of the Central Arbitration Committee, NHS Social Partnership Forum, CIPD

Employment Relations Forum. John has published widely on issues concerned with human

resource management and business performance.

Prof. Philip Dewe

Prof. Philip Dewe is Vice-Master of Birkbeck University of London and Professor of

Organizational Behaviour in the Department of Organizational Psychology.

Philip Dewe graduated with a Masters degree in Management and Administration from

Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand and with an MSc and PhD (in

Organizational Psychology) from the London School of Economics. After a period of work in

commerce in New Zealand he became a Senior Research Officer in the Work Research Unit,

Department of Employment (UK). In 1980 he joined Massey University in New Zealand and

headed the Department of Human Resource Management until joining the Department of

Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck, University of London in 2000. His research interests

include work stress and coping, emotions and human resource accounting. He is a member of

the editorial board of Work & Stress and the International Journal of Stress Management and

an Associate Editor of the American Journal of Heath Promotion. He has written widely in

the area of work stress and coping.

Committee secretary:

Dr. Robert Braam

Robert Braam graduated as physical geographer at the University of Utrecht, were he also

studied philosophy and humanistic ethics. He obtained a PhD in Science Studies from Leiden

University. Over the last years Robert regularly acted as committee secretary in research and

teaching evaluations, on behalf of QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities), for

Psychology research, Anthropology teaching (BA and MA), Religions Studies & Theology,

and NGI Genomics Centers. Currently he is senior researcher in Science System Assessment

at the Rathenau Institute, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science.

27

Appendix 3: Programme of the site visit

Program Site Visit

Research Evaluation Human Resources Sciences and Organisation Studies,

Tilburg University

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Arrival at Hotel De Postelse Hoeve* ( www.depostelsehoeve.nl )

14.30-15.00 Hotel Lobby Welcome committee by the dean of the faculty Prof. dr. Th.

M.M.Verhallen

15.00-16.00 Hotel Slotzaal Committee internal preparatory meeting:

- Procedure, roles, etc.

- Discussion of first impressions;

- Prepare meeting on Sept. 19th

16.00-16.15 Break

16.15-18.00 Hotel Slotzaal Continuation of committee internal meeting

19.00-21.30 Restaurant Hotel

Postelse Hoeve Committee dinner meeting with the dean and the vice dean

research/Oldendorff Institute management Prof. dr. Th.M.M.

Verhallen/Prof. dr. A.J.R. van de Vijver

21.30- Hotel Postelse Hoeve

Programme continues on next page

http://www.depostelsehoeve.nl/

28

Programme (continued)

Friday September 19, 2008

08.30-

09.00 Transport to University Campus** (

www.tilburguniversity.nl/faculties/fsw/research )

09.00-

09.15 P-0.01 Welcome committee, by

dean and vice-dean Prof. dr. Th.M.M. Verhallen /

Prof. dr. A.J.R. van de Vijver

09.15-

10.00 P-0.01 Meeting with Faculty Board

(dean, vice-dean research,

manager research institute).

Prof. dr. Th.M.M. Verhallen, Prof.

dr. A.J.R. van de Vijver and Dr. A.

Heinen

10.00-

10.15 Break

10.15-

11.00 P-0.01 Meeting with program

leader “Human Resource

Sciences”

Prof. dr. J. Paauwe and Prof. dr. R.

Poell

11.00-

11.45 P-0.01 Meeting with program

leader “Organisation

Studies”

Prof. dr. P. Kenis, Prof. dr.

M.T.H.Meeus, Dr. P. Vermeulen

11.45-

12.15 P-0.01 Internal deliberation of committee

12.15-

13.30 Auberge du

Bonheur Lunch and opportunity for internal deliberation of the committee

13.30-

14.15 P-0.01 Meeting with researchers

“Human Resource Sciences” Dr. M. van Veldhoven, Dr. M.

Biron, Dr. E. Farndale, Dr. M. van

Woerkom, Dr. M. van Engen

14.15-

15.00 P-0.01 Meeting with researchers

“Organisation Studies” Prof. dr. L. Oerlemans, Prof. Keith

Provan, Prof. dr. J. Benders, Dr. R.

Rutten, Dr. V. Gilsing, Dr. P.

Curseu, Drs. S. Boros, Dr. P.Zanoni

15.00-

15.15 Break

15.15-

16.00 P-0.01 Meeting with PhD students

of both research units HRS: Drs. K. van de Voorde, Drs.

M. Veld: OS: Dr. J. Knoben (recent

phd), Drs. R. Bakker. Drs. X. Smit.

Drs. A. Raaijmakers, Drs. G. Lucas

16.00-

17.30 P-0.01 Internal deliberations of the committee to formulate first

impressions and to make appointments for writing the evaluation

report

17.30-

18.30 P-0.01 Informal public presentation of the committee‟s first impressions

and findings

*De Postelse Hoeve; Dr. Deelenlaan 10; 5042 AD Tilburg; 013 4636335;

[email protected]

**University campus visiting address: Tilburg University Warandelaan 2 5037 AB Tilburg The

Netherlands

http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/faculties/fsw/research

mailto:[email protected]

research quality assessment 2001 2006 organisation studies ... · oldendorff research institute,...

Documents