Taking Comfort in Points: The Appeal of the Norwegian Model in Sweden

Abstract

Purpose The “Norwegian model” has become widely used for assessment and resource allocation purposes. This paper investigates why this model has becomes so widespread and influential. Approach A theoretical background is outlined in which the reduction of “uncertainty” is highlighted as a key feature of performance measurement systems. These theories are then drawn upon when revisiting previous studies of the Norwegian model, its use, and reactions to it, in Sweden. Findings The empirical examples, which concern more formal use on the level of universities as well as responses from individual researchers, shows how particular parts—especially the “publication indicator”—are employed in Swedish academia. The discussion posits that the attractiveness of the Norwegian model largely can be explained by its ability to reduce complexity and uncertainty, even in fields where traditional bibliometric measurement is less applicable. Research limitations The findings presented should be regarded as examples that can be used for discussion, but one should be careful to interpret these as representative for broader sentiments and trends. Implications The sheer popularity of the Norwegian model, leading to its application in contexts for which it was not designed, can be seen as a major challenge for the future. Originality This paper offers a novel perspective on the Norwegian model by focusing on its general “appeal”, rather than on its design, use or (mis)-use.

Gendering excellence through research productivity indicators

“…However, when used at the individual level, its effect may be anything but modest and predictable. There are several examples in Europe of how similar indicators are used to evaluate and reward individual researchers (Aagaard 2015;Cleere and Ma 2018;Hammarfelt 2018;Mingers and Leydesdorff 2015). The seriousness and scope of this kind of problem is reflected in the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Leiden Manifesto, which specifically recommend against using journal-based metrics to assess individual researchers (Hicks et al 2015).…”

“…Many other countries have adopted an indicator like the NPI, either at country level or at single universities, but mostly with local modifications (Zacharewicz et al 2019). For example, some Swedish universities give credit to local book series (Hammarfelt 2018); and the University College in Dublin, in addition to weighting book chapters and journal articles equally, also includes edited books and published reports (Cleere and Ma 2018). Our findings suggest that greater scholarly attention should be paid to the way these different modifications might affect gender gaps in productivity.…”

Are evaluative bibliometrics neoliberal? A historical and theoretical problematization

“…Hence, incentives for bibliometric evaluation trickled down, but its manifestation on the organizational level often followed another logic compared to the motives behind the national system. In fact, local systems of evaluation often used, or at least took inspiration from the Norwegian model (Hammarfelt, 2018), a system that, contrary to the Swedish model, aimed for inclusion, and transparency.…”

Understanding and Evaluating Research and Scholarly Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)

“…This is a model for using bibliometric indicators in performance-based funding of research institutions that I developed for the Norwegian government in 2004. It has so far also been adopted at the national level by Flanders in Belgium , Denmark (Aagaard, 2018), Finland (Pölönen, 2018), and Poland (Kulczycki & Korytkowski, 2018), as well as at the local level by several Swedish universities (Hammarfelt, 2018) and by University College Dublin in Ireland (Cleere & Ma, 2018). I explain the model in detail here, not only because it serves as an example of an extensive data source but also because I use data provided by the Norwegian model in some of the empirical results presented in this article.…”