324700_Print.indd

Table 2.1 International literature on evaluating research efficiency with DEA approach

Authors Sample Inputs Outputs Findings

Beasly (1990) 52

departments

(physics or

chemistry)

in British

universities

General

expenditure;

Equipment

expenditure;

Research income

Undergraduates;

Postgraduates;

Postgraduates

who are doing

research;

Research income;

Research ratings

(star, A+, A-, A)

5 physics

departments and 4

chemistry

departments are

smaller than the

minimum size.

Average

efficiency of a

chemistry

department is

68.8% and of a

physics

department is

71.0%

Johnes and

Johnes ( 1993 )

36

departments

(economics)

in British

universities

Person-months

input of teaching

and research staff

(or plus

research-only

staff); per capita

undergraduate

student load;

Value of grants

per capita

Papers in

academic

journals; Letters

in academic

journals;

Authored books;

Contributions to

edited works;

Papers or

communications

in“core”journals

Two distinct

clusters of

efficiencies; Some

nine departments

achieve an

efficiency score of

unity. All the

departments rated

in the top

University

Funding Council

(UFC) category

achieve a DEA

efficiency score of

unity

Athanassopoulos

and Shale ( 1997 )

45 British

universities

General

academic

expenditure;

Research

income;

FTE

undergraduates;

FTE

postgraduates;

FTE academic

staff;

Mean A-level

entry score;

Expenditure on

library and

computing

services

Successful

leavers; Higher

degrees awarded;

Weighted

research rating

6 universities

show satisfactory

performance

across alternative

efficiency tests.4

out of 12

universities with

greatest weighted

research ratings

failed to achieve

100% relative

efficiency

(continued)

20 2 Evaluation on University Research Efficiency and Productivity...