+ více k II. Mezinádorní konferenci IPN Metodika v článku Konference k financování přinesla podnětnou diskuzi: http://metodika.reformy-msmt.cz/2-mezinarodni-konference

1. Reflections on the
comments
www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz

2. Is the description of the proposed
method for allocation of PRFS clear?
• Overall picture
• Yes: 55
• No: 10
• Comments
• „Yes, but too complicated“
• „No, because too complicated and / or far too long for busy people“
• Specific issues
• Role of funding and founding ministries
• Inclusion of PhD-students (no) and non-PhD-researchers (yes)
• Budgetary issues (starting point, inflation, calculation through the funding period)
• Questions regarding the New Evaluation Methodology
2

3. Which of the two proposed
methods of allocations of PRFS do
you prefer?
• Two options:
• based on size (person scores)
• based on relative scores
• Overall picture
• based on size: 26
• based on relative scores: 29
• undecided or none of both: 10 (+)
• Issues
• definition of FTE
• possibly different consequences for different types of RO  different solutions for
different RO type?
3

4. Do you consider leaving part of
the funding for future development
of institutions suitable (PA)? Is the
proposed share of 5% optimal?
• Overall picture
• Yes: 47
• No: 14
• Undecided: 3
• Issues
• Empty promises?! Opens doors to corruption and clientelism.
• Too burdensome for 5%
• Capacities of providers?!
• Higher share (10%) – or no PA at all
• Different shares for different types of RO
4

5. Do you consider the proposed
division of the total budget of
institutional funding into „pots“ for
different types of RO suitable? Why?
• Overall picture
• Yes: 49
• No: 16
• Issues
• Agreement with proposal to differentiate RO by mission
• Disagreement with categorisation of ROs
• Which type of RO is my RO?
• What is an eligible RO at all?
5

6. What is important for your RO?
• Three options
• budget volume
• stability of funding system and rules
• dynamics of funding system
• Overall picture: Extremely important
• budget volume: 30
• stability of funding system and rules: 33
• dynamics of funding system: 1
• undecided: 1
• Issues
• Many comments: volume AND stability are both extremely important
6

7. Do you consider the proposed
share of PRFS (15%) in the
institutional funding to be the right
proportion? Why (not)?
• Overall picture
• yes: 44
• no: 19
• undecided: 1
• Issues
• Strongly depends on fairness of the New Evaluation Methodology
• Share should be lower because of issues with the New Evaluation Methodolgy
• peer review cannot be trusted
• foreign reviewers do not understand the Czech situation and system
• the evaluation criteria are not objective
• Share should be higher
• to overturn „current rotten coffee mill“
• because performance is most important
• because Technoplis would not be credible if they suggested a lower share
7

8. Are the proposed weights for
evaluation criteria appropriate to
your RO? If not, explain.
• Overall picture
• yes: 38
• no: 21
• unspecified: 6
• Issues:
• Various suggestions for different weights
• Voices for each of the different scenarios (default, medium, radical)
• RO are not homogeneous internally (faculties)
• Some issues with the evaluation criteria
• management is contested most, considered too important
• criteria are not completely independent
8

9. 9

10. Sammeln
• Counting researchers
• Only PhD-holders? Why not PhD-students or holders of Ing. and Mgr. degrees that
do research?
• Disputed issue, not equally relevant to all RO
• Trade of: size-gaming vs. poor productivity ratings in the Evaluation
• Gaming only possible if person scores are used
• To be reconsidered
• Tři
• čtyři
10

11. What ratio of institutional funding
to competitive funding do you
consider optimal in your RO?
11

12. 12
Místo pro vložení tabulek, grafů atp.

13. Děkujeme za pozornost!
www.metodika.reformy-msmt.cz