Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University

Hammarfelt, Björn; Rijcke, Sarah de

doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu029

Cited by 136 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results-an increase in the number of international publications (including publications in German or French)-were found in a recent study of publication patterns at the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University in Sweden. Notable from this study was that researchers perceived major changes in publication patterns while the actual changes in publication patterns were small (Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015).…”

Section: Publication Patternsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…One question is whether the publication practices of scholars in the humanities are adapting to the norms that prevail in the natural sciences. A few studies (Butler 2003;Kyvik 2003) suggest that this might be the case, while others emphasize the constancy of cited and published material (Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015;Larivière et al 2006). How the increasing importance of 'research outputs' across research fields will influence publication practices in the humanities has not been determined.…”

Section: The Language and Age Of Cited Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities

Hammarfelt

2016

Research Assessment in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, the possibility of using bibliometric measures for evaluating research in the humanities is pondered. A review of recent attempts to develop bibliometric methods for studying the humanities shows that organizational, epistemological differences as well as distinct research practices in research fields ought to be considered. The dependence on colleagues, interdisciplinarity and the 'rural' nature of research in many humanistic disciplines are identified as factors that influence the possibilities of applying bibliometric methods. A few particularly promising approaches are highlighted, and the possibility of developing a 'bibliometrics for the humanities' is examined. Finally, the intellectual characteristics of specific disciplines should be considered when quality indicators are constructed, and the importance of including scholars from the humanities in the process is stressed.

show abstract

Section: Publication Patternsmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: The Language and Age Of Cited Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities

Hammarfelt

2016

Research Assessment in the Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, it is only recently that considerable interest has been directed towards the more intricate effects that these measures might have on concrete practices of knowledge production (Derrick and Gillespie 2013, Hammarfelt and de Rijcke 2015, Müller 2014, de Rijcke, Wouters, Franssen, et al 2016, Wouters 2014. A recent review of the literature regarding evaluation practices and effects of performance indicators outlines at least two possible consequences that these measures might have (de Rijcke, Wouters, Rushforth, et al 2016).…”

Section: The Epistemic Impact Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<b>Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate</b>

Fochler

Rijcke

2017

Engaging STS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of new modes evaluating academic work has substantially changed institutions and cultures of knowledge production. This has been reflected and criticized in the literature in STS and beyond. For STS scholars, these debates (should) however have an even more specific dimension. Many of us are experts on aspects of these changes. But at the same time, we too are part of the processes we are analyzing, and often criticizing. To put it slightly provocatively, often we cannot avoid playing the very same game that we scrutinize. This creates tensions that many of us reflect on, and it certainly has created many implicit and explicit normative stances on how to deal with them. Yet it seems that so far there has been little room in our field to reflect on and exchange this particular kind of experience-based knowledge. There are many different ways to engage with the dynamics of evaluation, measurement and competition in contemporary academia, or to play what we refer to colloquially here as the "indicator game." With this debate, we would like to give room to the expression and discussion of some of these ways. This text is the introduction and prompt to an experimental debate. We discuss the state of the academic discussion on the impact of indicator-based evaluation on academic organization, epistemic work and identities. We use insights from these debates to raise questions for how STS and STSers themselves deal with the indicator game. In conclusion, we summarize our contributors' arguments and propose the concept of "evaluative inquiry" as a new way of representing the quality of STS work in evaluative contexts.

show abstract

“…In the meantime, knowledge on research and dissemination practices in the SSH is scarce, while research assessment did not stop at the gate of the SSH disciplines (Guillory, 2005;Burrows, 2012). The growing pressure of accountability, prevailing government practices based on New Public Management and the availability of quantitative data led to the implementation of (quantitative) research assessments also in the SSH during the last decades (Kekäle, 2002;Hammarfelt and de Rijcke, 2015;Hamann, 2016). The creation of the European Research Area (ERA) increased the importance of research evaluation: the initial communication "Towards a European Research Area" listed under the first theme of action the "mapping of European centres of excellence" and "Financing plan for centres of excellence on the basis of competition" (Commission of the European Communities, 2000); 15 years later, the ERA Roadmap listed the following as the first among the Roadmap's priorities: "Strengthening the evaluation of research and innovation policies and seeking complementarities between, and rationalization of, instruments at EU and national levels".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University

Cited by 136 publications

References 24 publications

Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities

Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities

<b>Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate</b>

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About