Stikkord: forskningsevaluering

Stikkordarkiv: forskningsevaluering

NARMAs årskonferanse i 2021 blir virtuell. Bli med oss 9.-11. mars 2021 og delta på spennende sesjoner og opplev inspirerende keynotes

Hovedtemaet for NARMA 2021 er

«Europa i endring; fra politikk til praksis»

Konferansen bygger på tidligere års fremragende innhold og leverer et nytt og spennende program for kunnskapsdeling, nettverksbygging og presentasjoner.

Konferansen åpnes av Forsknings- og høyere utdanningsminister Henrik Asheim og vil inneholde åtte sesjoner som dekker aktuelle temaer innen forskningsadministrasjon og -ledelse. Deltagerne vil kunne ha kontakt med foredragsholdere og andre deltagere gjennom chat og zoom-diskusjoner for å dele innsikt og utvikle oss sammen.

Sesjonene vil ha temaer som Horisont Europa, talentutvikling for unge forskere, åpen forskning, ansvarlig forskningsevaluering, innovasjon, internt samarbeid for styrket forskningsadministrasjon, forskerutdanning – training the mindset, m.m.

Vi gledet oss veldig til å se dere alle igjen i 2021, men måtte ta avgjørelsen om digital konferanse da mange ikke vil være i stand til å delta i personlige arrangementer inntil COVID-19-vaksineprogrammet er rullet ut.

Oppdatert informasjon om påmelding og programdetaljer vil publiseres i januar på NARMAS nettsider og via nyhetsbrev.

Les mer om programinnholdet under arrangementet på NARMA aktiviteter.


Rating the Rankers!

Initial findings from an international research evaluation working group suggests that the organisations behind university world rankings merit some scrutiny themselves.

Looking at six of the largest and most influential world university rankings, members of the International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) Research Evaluation Working Group used their five-step process called SCOPE to assess them on a number of community-developed criteria centred around good governance, transparency, measuring what matters and rigour.

The group found that while most of the ranking organisations made some efforts towards good governance, there were clear weaknesses in terms of declaring conflicts of interest.

The rankers’ aims and methods were generally transparent, although this was not necessarily borne out by others’ ability to replicate the data, data availability or financial transparency.

Most rankings underperformed when it came to measuring what matters, all failing to tailor their offer to different audiences and showing unfair bias to some groups. Finally, university rankings, which are most criticised for their methodological invalidity, generally scored very poorly when it came to implementing rigorous methods.

Convenor of the INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group, Dr Lizzie Gadd, said:there is clearly work to be done here, and we hope that our rating clearly highlights what needs to be done and by whom. The world university rankings currently fail to meet community expectations around fair, meaningful, and responsible evaluation. We hope that this work will provide ranking organisations, and those that rely on them for decision-making, an opportunity to reflect and reconsider their approach.”

For further information, Rethinking the rankings, a blogpost by Lizzie Gadd and Richard Holmes can be found on the ARMA website at

Contact Lizzie Gadd at,  Twitter: @lizziegadd

For further information on INORMS, visit

INORMS har to norske medlemmer i dette arbeidet; professor Nils Pharo og seniorrådgiver Tanja Strøm ved OsloMet

New guidance: Research Ethics Support and Review in Research Organisations

The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) and the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA) published Research Ethics Support and Review in Research Organisations, to support the research community in achieving high standards of research ethics review on April 8th.

The guidance offers benchmark policies and processes which organisations can use to create, revise or audit institutional practices in order to support the functions of research ethics committees.

It also synthesises developments in academic work on ethics and integrity, the expectations of research funders and government and existing examples of good practice, to help researchers and organisations to develop a positive culture of integrity and ethics in research.

Steph Bales, Chair of ARMA said: “I am thrilled to see the collaborative efforts of ARMA and UKRIO come to fruition in this joint guidance document. It is essential reading for all research professionals not just those involved in supporting ethics committee structures and I urge all ARMA members to download a copy. I would particularly like to thank those experts who were formerly part of the Association for Research Ethics (AfRE) without whom this endeavour would have been impossible.”

Professor Sir Ian Boyd, Chair of UKRIO said: “All organisations involved in research, from universities to commercial companies, will benefit from this document. The principles it sets out lay the ground work for good practice. Ensuring the highest standards in research integrity and ethics needs to be a central plank of corporate social responsibility. People expect it and this document points out the route through which this responsibility can be delivered.”

Research Ethics Support and Review in Research Organisations is available in two formats: the standard guidance, which includes extended background and rationale with references, and a summary version, which sets out key recommendations and basic ground rules for developing best practice in supporting high ethical standards in research.

Supporting materials:

A presentation summarising the key points of the guidance is available in Powerpoint and PDF formats:

Forms from the Appendices are also available as separate PDFs for ease of completion:

Additional supporting materials will be published in due course and the guidance will be incorporated in UKRIO’s and ARMA’s training programmes.

Written by James Parry, Chief Executive,  UK Research Integrity Office

A webinar from the INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group: SCOPE: A five-step process for evaluating responsibly

The International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) established the Research Evaluation Working Group in 2018 to consider how to best ensure that research evaluation is meaningful, responsible and effective. The Working Group is truly global, it has members from all continents, with the exception of Antarctica!

The Research Evaluation Working Group invites research managers and other research evaluation practitioners involved in planning, implementing and interpreting research evaluations to a webinar on ‘SCOPE’ – a five step process for evaluating responsibly.

The webinar will be held on Monday 20th April 2020 at 1-2 pm BST [In Norway at 2-3 pm]

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto and the Metric Tide give the Higher Education sector a framework for evaluating research responsibly. However, practitioners who plan and organize evaluations may still be left asking “now what?”. How do we actually do research evaluation responsibly?

The INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group has developed a five-stage process for evaluating responsibly, that may answer that question! The process is called ‘SCOPE’.This webinar presents the SCOPE model in detail and provides a practical framework for research managers, and others, seeking to conduct responsible research evaluations.

Register for the webinar

The webinar can host up to 150 participants. All who register will receive the link to the webinar, and the first 150 to join the webinar can attend live. A recording of the webinar will be sent to all who register.

Hope you can join us!

The INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group

For more information, please contact Laura Himanen (laura.himanen(at)

SCOPE – how you actually go about using metrics responsibly

We’ve got a shed load of principles now for responsible research metrics.

We have DORA, the Leiden Manifesto and the Metric Tide. We also have the many bespoke sets of principles being developed by individual organisations. And they’re great.

They provide a framework for evaluating responsibly which makes evaluators think and think again about their approaches. However, what they don’t provide is a how-to guide.

“INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group for evaluating responsibly” provide a model we’ve called ‘SCOPE’ on how you actually go about using metrics responsibly.

This model, as with all our work, is open to feedback to ensure it best serves the international communities we are a part of.

Please join the conversation on the INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group discussion list, or contact me (mail to: Tanja Strøm) or the authors of the blog post below directly with your thoughts.

We’d love to hear from you.

 Introducing SCOPE – a process for evaluating  responsibly


Published on behalf of Tanja Strøm, member of INORMS Research Evaluation Working Group, Vice-Chairman at NARMA and Senior Adviser, OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University