Click here to download

Assessing Universities. A Difficult Task for Many Actors
Journal Title: SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE  
Author/s: Luisa Ribolzi 
Year:  2013 Issue: 100 Language: Italian 
Pages:  10 Pg. 23-32 FullText PDF:  599 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SR2013-100004
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


National system to evaluate universities started in Europe at the very beginning of 80’s. In that period the growing number of students and the consequent changes in their composition moved the universities from «quality as a fact» to «quality as a problem». In the same time, the need for accountability was a challenge both for the governance and for the Governments, that adopted two different model of evaluating: a direct control or a control through a national independent agency. This paper, starting from Italian experience of Anvur, defines the aims of evaluating universities and research, related to the social role of higher education. It presents the actors, contents and methods (the «who, what, how») of the evaluation process, based on quality assurance and internal assessment, enhancing both technical and cultural problems and perspectives of an issue quite new for Italian universities. The recent introduction by law of research assessment in the Italian academic system has triggered a wide debate especially focused on its weakness and paradoxes as well as its potential negative effects on disciplinary autonomy and freedom of research. Contrary to this vision, in this paper I argue that evaluation mechanisms should be welcomed in those disciplinary fields - as sociology in Italy - which for historical, cultural and political causes have not been able to organize themselves as scientific communities, i.e. as communities of practice grounded on peer control and evaluation. The paper offers a brief sociological analysis of the social organization of Italian academic sociology, highlighting the deleterious effects on scientific communication and value recognition fostered by its segmentation in mutually exclusive, sometimes conflicting sometimes colluding, corporate groups (so called «component»). Far from being an assault on its freedom and autonomy, a state-backed system of evaluation may be instrumental to the creation and legitimation of a disciplinary culture of self evaluation and value assessment according to transparent, institutionalized and not provincial quality standards.

  1. C. Barone (2012), Le trappole della meritocrazia, Bologna, il Mulino.
  2. A. Baccini (2010), Valutare la ricerca scientifica, Bologna, il Mulino.
  3. R. Barnett (1990), The Idea of Higher Education, Milton Keynes, Srhe & Open University.
  4. O. Beaud et al. (2010), Refonder l’université. Pourquoi l’enseignement supérieur reste à reconstruire, Paris, La Découverte.
  5. J. Brennan et al. (1992), Towards a Methodology for Comparative Quality Assessment in European Higher Education, London, Cnaa, p. 13.
  6. M. Cave et al. (1997), The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education, London, Jessica Kingsley.
  7. B. Clark (1983), The Higher Education System, Berkeley, University of California Press.
  8. S. Cuenin (1986), International Studies of the Development of Performance Indicators in Higher Education, Paris, Oecd, Imhe Project.
  9. B.V. Frosini (a cura di) (2011), La valutazione della ricerca e la valutazione della didattica, Milano, Vita & Pensiero.
  10. L.C. Goedegebuure, P. Maassen, D. Westerheijden (eds.) (1990), Peer Review and Performance Indicators, Utrecht, Lemma.
  11. E. Hanusheck, D. Woessmann (2007), «The Role of Education Quality for Economic Growth», World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 4122.
  12. Høgskoleverket, National Quality Assurance System for the Period 2007-2001, Report 2008:4R.
  13. G. Neave (1994), «The Politics of Quality: Developments in Higher Education in Western Europe 1992-1994», European Journal of Education, 29, pp. 115-34.
  14. G. Neave, F. van Vught (eds.) (1991), Prometheus Bound: The Changing Relationship between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, London, Pergamon Press.
  15. D.B. Robertson, J.L. Waltman (1992), «The Politics of Policy Borrowing», Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, II, 2, pp. 25-48.
  16. A. Staropoli (1991), Evaluation Policy and Techniques in France, in T.W. Banta (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on assessing quality in higher education, Knoxville, Centre for Assessment Research and Development.
  17. M. Trow (1979), Elite and Mass Higher Education: American Models and European Realities, Research into Higher Education: Processes and Structures, Stockholm, National Board of Universities and Colleges.
  18. F. van Vught (1994), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aspects of Quality Assessment in Higher Education, in D.F. Westerheiden, J. Brennan, P. Maassen (eds.), Changing Contexts of Quality Assessment, Cheps, Utrecht, Lemma.
  19. D.F. Westerheijden (1990), Peers, Performance and Power: Quality Assessment in the Netherlands, in L.C. Goedegebuure, P. Maassen, D. Westerheijden (eds.), Peer Review and Performance Indicators, Utrecht, Lemma.
  20. A. Wolf (2002), Does Education matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth, London, Penguin Books.

Luisa Ribolzi, Assessing Universities. A Difficult Task for Many Actors in "SOCIOLOGIA E RICERCA SOCIALE " 100/2013, pp. 23-32, DOI:10.3280/SR2013-100004

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content