vetenskapsrådets kartläggning, utvärdering och rekommendationer ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2 KARTLÄGGNING OCH UTVÄRDERING AV SVENSK VÅRDFORSKNING – HUVUDRAPPORT OCH UNDERLAG FÖR VETENSKAPSRÅDETS REKOMMENDATIONER submit a consolidated self-evaluation report of their Care science research to the Research Council. The major objectives of the evaluation were to evaluate the scientific quality from an international perspective and the clinical and/or societal relevance of the research. This evaluation was undertaken by two panels, one scientific panel with international experts and one relevance panel consisting of (Swedish) persons with a special expertise in the use of research in the healthcare field. The evaluation work consisted primarily of reviewing self-evaluation reports from twenty eight universities/colleges. No site visits or special hearings were conducted. Rather, a number of submissions were allocated across panel members for them to review independently and the results were discussed at a 2 day panel meeting in Stockholm on 10th and 11th January 2012. The overall objective of the evaluation was to inform the Research council about the scientific quality of the research within the area, within an international context. The scientific panels’ specific evaluation objectives were to: • Assess the scientific quality of Care Science research from an international perspective; • Identify research collaborations and networks regionally, nationally and internationally; • Assess future plans and research potential; • Identify strong research areas and/or successful research groups and areas where improvements could occur; • Make recommendations. Panel members from seven different countries worked independently, with several reviewing the same submission (see Instructions for the scientific evaluation in Appendix 1). It was pleasing to note the high degree of consensus across the panel members with regard to their assessments. There follows an overview of the main issues that arose from the exercise. Process Issues • The panel would wish to stress that their reports should not be used to rank or compare care science in one university with another. To do so, considering the heterogeneity across the sector, would not be helpful. • The very broad definition of Care Sciences brought some challenges to panel members in their assessment of submissions. The Research Council might consider revisiting this definition with a view to having a greater focus. Furthermore, there were some self-evaluation reports that were very well written but some where there was obviously little effort expen- 24 VETENSKAPSRÅDETS KARTLÄGGNING, UTVÄRDERING OCH REKOMMENDATIONER ANGÅENDE SVENSK VÅRDFORSKNING
2 KARTLÄGGNING OCH UTVÄRDERING AV SVENSK VÅRDFORSKNING – HUVUDRAPPORT OCH UNDERLAG FÖR VETENSKAPSRÅDETS REKOMMENDATIONER ded. A nationally agreed template for completion may be one approach to ensure consistency. The panel also realised that the self-evaluation was a challenge to those large institutions where there were large numbers of research projects and a variety of topics. In contrast, some small university colleges were able to produce a more coherent report due to their more modest research activities and smaller cohort of researchers. Staffing Issues • Many of the senior staff are over sixty years of age and in many instances there were more staff over fifty years of age than there were below fifty. While this may be understandable due to the desire among care science staff to gain some years of clinical experience and/or raise a family, it does raise issues of sustainability and succession planning. The panel suggests that this should be addressed through support for early career researchers, research masters courses, short courses on research skills, clinical-academic career pathways and joint appointments between academic and clinical practice. • In many universities, there appeared to be a gender imbalance. While the panel recognised that most of the caring science academic staff are female, there was a disproportionate number of male professors. • The panel detected that some research staff had heavy administration and teaching loads. While this is understandable in this field, there should be some ’protected time’ for active researchers to get relief from nonresearch activities. Research Collaborations and Partnerships • The panel were impressed with many of the ongoing research collaborations and networks but most of these tended to be at regional and/or national level. There was less evidence of meaningful and focused collaborations internationally. Where this was the case, it was not always possible to see the results of these collaborations in the form of joint publications, grant applications and conference presentations. Some universities had strong collaborations and partnerships with their local health services, councils, municipalities, charities, business and service user organisations. Such collaborations were perceived positively by the panel but were not common. • It was disappointing for the panel to note that while several different universities across Sweden were undertaking research in identical areas, there was no obvious collaboration or sharing of ideas, methodologies or research instruments. To address this, there should be collaboration among centres on specific topics. One way of approaching this is through the establishment of network ’hubs’ in centres of excellence with ’spokes’ linking such centres to research groups in other institutions that are un- VETENSKAPSRÅDETS KARTLÄGGNING, UTVÄRDERING OCH REKOMMENDATIONER ANGÅENDE SVENSK VÅRDFORSKNING 25
Page 1: VETENSKAPSRÅDETS KARTLÄGGNING, UT
Page 4: VETENSKAPSRÅDETS KARTLÄGGNING, UT
Page 8 and 9: 2.5 Intervjuer om svensk vårdforsk
Page 10 and 11: SAMMANFATTNING • En utvärdering
Page 12 and 13: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following fou
Page 14 and 15: 1 VETENSKAPSRÅDETS REKOMMENDATIONE
Page 16 and 17: 1 VETENSKAPSRÅDETS REKOMMENDATIONE
Page 18 and 19: 2 KARTLÄGGNING OCH UTVÄRDERING AV
Page 76 and 77:
2 KARTLÄGGNING OCH UTVÄRDERING AV
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Summa heltidsekvivalenter 250 200 1
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
3 BILAGOR Bilaga 3.1 204 VETENSKAPS
Page 208 and 209:
3 BILAGOR 206 VETENSKAPSRÅDETS KAR
Page 210 and 211:
3 BILAGOR Bilaga 3.3 Vetenskapsråd
Page 212 and 213:
3 BILAGOR Bilaga 3.5 Sammanställni
Page 214 and 215:
3 BILAGOR Bilaga 3.6 212 VETENSKAPS
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220:
Hösten 2010 gav regeringen Vetensk
show all

vetenskapsrådets kartläggning, utvärdering och rekommendationer ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?