Higher education systems in competitive environments generally present top universities, that are able to attract top scientists, top students and public and private financing, with notable socio-economic benefits in their region. The same does not hold true for non-competitive systems. In this study we will measure the dispersion of research performance within and between universities in the Italian university system, typically non-competitive. We will also investigate the level of correlation that occurs between performance in research and its dispersion in universities. The findings may represent a first benchmark for similar studies in other nations. Furthermore, they lead to policy indications, questioning the effectiveness of selective funding of universities based on national research assessment exercises. The field of observation is composed of all Italian universities active in the hard sciences. Research performance will be evaluated using a bibliometric approach, through publications indexed in the Web of Science between 2004 and 2008.
In every field of human activity there are certain individuals who distinguish themselves by particular competencies, attitudes and interests, generally translating into outstanding levels of performance. Similarly, in every economic sector there are certain organizations, public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit, which consistently demonstrate top performance, in turn leading to a reputation which is likely to become a distinctive competence of the organization. These organizations generally excel at every link in the chain of value, thanks to quality of their personnel and the strategic and organizational capacity of their management. The fundamental key to their long-term success is a capacity to attract, develop and retain talent, meaning the best representatives of the work force in each function. Research organizations (universities and institutions), whether public or private, will not escape this rule as long as they operate in competitive environments. The level of domestic competition in higher education is determined by several contextual elements, from cultural practices to political legitimization of the system. One of the fundamental determinants of competitive intensity is undoubtedly the typology of funding and related incentives, at macro, meso and micro levels. In countries where government funding of universities represents a large share of total budget and is allocated with the intention of ensuring sufficiency of resources, competition among universities will likely be low in intensity. On the contrary, in nations where extragovernmental financing is significant and the public allocation is essentially based on merit, the environment is likely to be more competitive (Geuna and Martin, 2003). Over time, competition should lead to the development of distinctive competencies and to a subsequent competitive advantage of some organizations over all the others, meaning that in competitive environments it is possible to observe more marked performance differences among universities, and a mapping of the higher education industry into strategic groups.
Auranen and Nieminen (2010) classified the higher education systems of such countries as Germany, Sweden and Denmark (the present authors would also add Italy) as non-competitive. In these nations, the distinction of the different levels of excellence among universities is not immediate. On the contrary, in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, which fall in the competitive category, few would have difficulty in identifying the best research universities. These universities are in competition with one another to bring in, from at home and abroad, the best researchers and teaching professors, the best technical-administrative personnel, best students, donations and public and private financing for research. Their reputations and competitive advantages are reflected as much in the salary levels and status that they succeed in providing as in the willingness of students to pay tuition fees that are well over average. Local and national governments have every interest in developing and cultivating champion institutions. In fact, the social and economic benefits for the nation and home region of a prestigious university have been soundly demonstrated (Rosemberg andNelson, 1994, Pressman et al., 1995;Fritsch and Slavtchev, 2006). Governments should thus provide the conditions for development of competitive environments, leading to continuous improvement in the entire higher education system, and the emergence of top universities.
It is no accident that, in recent years, an increasing number of nations have begun regular national exercises for research evaluation, permitting the allocation of funds on the basis of performance criteria and the stimulation of greater research productivity.
These exercises are generally based on the peer-review method, implying the evaluation of only a share of the entire research output of each university. Rankings for the universities are drawn up on the basis of the average quality of the research products as submitted by the institutions, and not on productivity. Performances of universities are compared at discipline level and not at individual level.
If the objective of government is to stimulate competition among universities, and so lead to the development of top universities that can compete internationally and produce the relevant socio-economic benefits, then one of the indicators to monitor over time, other than performance itself, is the degree of concentration of performance within universities. The less research performance is dispersed within universities then the greater is the probability of having top universities that are able to compete at the international level. This would indicate that the competitive environment has led to the formation of a system of universities with marked differences in performance, and thus the concentration of top scientists in top univ
This content is AI-processed based on open access ArXiv data.
