The importance of good websites for communicating research should not be
underestimated. The quality of websites varies considerably among the units in this evaluation, and some have the potential to greatly improve communication through their websites. Some seem to have given high priority to developing their websites, while others seem to have neglected them.
The website of a research unit should provide a good overview of publications and projects, as well as the expertise of the scholarly staff. Also, good routines for regular updates are vital for communicating with all kinds of users and should not be left up to the individual researchers. Frequent updates of the websites also help to promote research results and increase the likelihood that the information will be used by and have an impact in the various user groups.
Moreover, it is important to adapt the form of communication to the various user groups. Non-researchers usually prefer relatively short texts that summarise findings and
recommendations in a coherent manner or power-point briefings in a more closed setting. There are different ways to meet such demands. The Internet is an efficient medium for posting electronic policy briefs. In addition, websites are well suited for providing downloadable text in various versions – in the form of full text, executive summaries or even briefings or dialogues adapted to meet specific needs.
4.5
Summary of main observations
Scholarly publications
The lingua franca of development research is English, and Norwegian development research reflects this. Only 7 percent of the publications studied are in Norwegian or other Scandinavian languages, whereas about 90 percent are in English. In addition to most of the research being published internationally, many articles also appear in the highly rated international journals. This indicates that Norwegian development researchers largely relate to development research as an international research field. The research results are published in a wide variety of journals. In the five-year period
studied, 27 percent of the articles were published in 15 different journals (with 6 to 22 articles in each); the remaining articles were distributed among 269 different journals – with one to five articles in each.
The publication profiles of the thematic areas vary somewhat. The highest proportion of journal articles is found within “Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction” (65 percent), the lowest within “Culture, Education and Gender” (44 percent).
There are also differences in the frequency of co-authorship. Sixty-three percent of the publications within “Resource Management” are co-authored; only 18 percent of the publications within “Culture, Education and Gender” are co-authored.
The publication output was also analysed in terms of the scores based on the newly introduced performance-based budgeting model for Norwegian higher education institutions. In all publication categories, the overall percentage of the publications in highly rated outlets is higher than the 20 percent “limit” of the performance-based budgeting model, indicating a high international profile of the publications in this field compared to Norwegian publishing in other fields. The independent institutes scored somewhat better than the higher education institutions in terms of the proportion of their output that is published in highly rated outlets. On the other hand, the majority of the scholarly output comes from the higher education sector.
Looking at publication outlet ratings by thematic area, there are notable differences. Whereas as much as 33 percent of the journal articles within “Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction” appear in journals rated as the most important in their field, only 15 percent of the journal articles within “Resource Management” are in such highly rated journals.
Publications and communication aimed at users/a wider public
The units in this evaluation seem to spend considerable effort on the dissemination and communication of results to policy makers and a wider public. However, there are large variations among the units in terms of how well they keep records of their non- scholarly publications and communications.
Norwegian development researchers are good at writing for a wider public. They are more active in the public sphere than their colleagues in neighbouring countries, and there is a more lively public debate about development issues.
Nevertheless, the data leave us with an impression that the researchers have different attitudes and priorities regarding user communication, which would indicate that the extent and quality of such communication may vary considerably depending on the researchers involved.
Good websites are important for communicating research. The quality of websites varies considerably among the units in this evaluation, and some have the potential to greatly improve communication through their websites.
Overall, the Evaluation Committee considers that the number of Norwegian articles in good outlets has increased substantially. This indicates that Norwegian development researchers have become more competitive and that their visibility and recognition have been enhanced.
5
Quality and scope of the research
What is the international standing and quality of Norwegian development research? To answer this question, a selection of the scholarly publications was reviewed. The Evaluation Committee selected 2 to 12 publications from each of the research units – depending on the size of the unit. In total, 157 publications were reviewed. The major concerns when selecting these publications were to include articles by the major researchers and in the major journals, as well as articles by a variety of researchers and research topics at each institution. Some institutions had listed only a few articles in scholarly journals or anthologies, and consequently, there were little to choose between.28 It should be noted that the selection is most likely biased towards the better publications, as the Committee took care to include publications by the key researchers and from the major development journals.
The publications of each research unit were reviewed by two to three external referees – for 23 of the publications, however, only one referee report was obtained. The referees were selected by the Evaluation Committee with input from RCN. In total, 20 experts outside the Evaluation Committee were used, none of them Norwegian. The referees were asked to comment on specific questions regarding originality, methods/solidity, scholarly relevance, publication profile and research impact and to rate the publications on a scale from “Poor” to “Exceptionally Good” (see Appendix 4 for the review form used). Below we first give an account of the results of the publication review by thematic area and by type of institution. At the end of the chapter, the general conclusions are
summarised. It should be added that within all areas, the reviewers expressed different opinions and there were also different interpretations of the rating scale. When presenting the scores, we have used the aggregated averages to outweigh these differences in
assessments and interpretations. The intention is to provide a good overall picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the research under review – not to assess the various research units.