A GOAL-ORIENTED APPROACH TO THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH TEAMS

The current growth of scientific knowledge has intensified the problem of research performance assessment. However, there is still a lack of the unified assessment methodology, largely due to the changing nature of modern science. At present, knowledge is increasingly generated by collective actors - research teams, rather than by individual scientists. These collective actors constitute a complex self-developing and evolutionary system, making its evaluation rather problematic. By using a goal-oriented approach, this paper seeks to identify specific characteristics of various research team types and suggests a qualitative criterion against which their research performance can be measured. It is shown that a research team forms and evolves around a goal that is shared by all its members; this common goal defines both structural-managerial characteristics of such a collective actor and qualitative attributes of attained research objectives. The obtained results - research team models and the qualitative criterion of their performance - can be used as a platform for further research into the cross-cultural, ethical, and economic dimensions of research teams, as well as for assessing research performance of actual teams.

research team, collective actor of knowledge generation, research performance assessment, qualitative research assessment criteria, research management, goal-oriented approach, research team typology

1. Аллахвердян А. Г., Мошкова Г. Ю., Юревич А. В., Ярошевский М. Г. Психология науки. М.: Моск. психол.-социал. ин-т Флинта, 1998. 312 с.

2. Adams J., Black G., Clemmons R., Stephan P. Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981-1999, Research Policy, 2005, vol. 34, pp. 259-285.

3. Wuchty S., Jones B., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge, Science, 2007, vol. 316, pp. 1036-1039.

4. Бондарев В. П., Бойченко О. В. Структура и функционирование научного коллектива (коммуникативный аспект) // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 18. Социология и политология. 2011. № 1. С. 80-97.

5. Дикусар В. В., Нечеухин О. В. Проблема создания оптимальных структур научных коллективов // Вопросы теории безопасности и устойчивости систем. 2004. № 6-2. С. 77-85.

6. Лежебоков А. А., Сергодеева Е. А. Концептуальные модели управления научными коллективами // Новая наука: Теоретический и практический взгляд. 2016. № 10-2. С. 153-158.

7. Blau P. The Organization of Academic Work. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994. 311 p.

8. Etzkowitz H. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science, Minerva, 1983, vol. 21, pp. 198-233.

9. Gaziulusoy A., Ryan C., McGrail S., Chandler P., Twomey P. Identifying and addressing challenges faced by transdisciplinary research teams in climate change research, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, vol. 123, pp. 55-64.

10. Hagstrom W. O. Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1964, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 241-263.

11. Marlow S., Lacerenza C., Salas E. Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda, Human Resource Management Review, Jan. 2017, DOI 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005.

12. Perovic S., Radovanovic S., Sikimic V., Berber A. Optimal research team composition: data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments, Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 108, pp. 83-111.

13. Лойко В. И., Романов Д. А., Попова О. Б. Современные модели и методы диагностики исследовательской деятельности научно-педагогических коллективов // Научный журнал КубГАУ 2015. № 112 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/08/pdf/139.pdf (дата обращения: 13.01.2017).

14. Романов Д. А. Современные модели научно-педагогического коллектива как субъекта исследовательской деятельности // Научные труды КубГТУ. 2016. № 5 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://ntk.kubstu.ru/file/978 (дата обращения: 13.01.2017).

15. Abbott J., Boyd N., Miles G. Does Type of Team Matter? An Investigation of the Relationships Between Job Characteristics and Outcomes Within a Team-Based Environment, The Journal Of Social Psychology, vol. 146, no. 4, pp. 485-507.

16. Chompalov I., Genuth J., Shrum W. The organization of scientific collaborations, Research Policy, 2001, vol. 31, pp. 749-767.

17. Milojevic S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, vol. 111, pp. 3984-3989.

18. Walsh J., Lee Y. The bureaucratization of science, Research Policy, 2015, vol. 44, pp. 1584-1600.

19. Мамардашвили М. К. Наука и культура // Мамардашвили М. К. Как я понимаю философию. 2-е изд., изм. и доп. М.: Прогресс, 1992. С. 291-310.

20. Bucheister J. Toward a theory of academic self-awareness [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss12/1 (дата обращения: 12.10.2016).

21. Biricheva C. V. Investigation of Freedom in its Ontological Sense, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2015, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 11-16.