Are evaluative bibliometrics neoliberal? A historical and theoretical problematization

Abstract

In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by ‘neoliberal’ ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific design, we discuss the existence or non-existence of neoliberal motivations and rationales. Overall, we find that a relatively homogeneous academic landscape, with a high degree of centralization and government steering, appears to be a common feature for countries implementing national evaluation systems relying on bibliometrics. Such characteristics, we argue, may not be inductively understood as neoliberal but as indications of national states displaying strong political steering of its research system. Consequently, if used without further clarification, ‘neoliberalism’ is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful when analyzing the development of research evaluation and bibliometric measures in the past half a century.

What is neoliberalism really? A global analysis of its real-world consequences for development, inequality, and democracy

“…Daniel Rodgers (2018) similarly lamented that ‘[n]eoliberalism is the linguistic omnivore of our times, a neologism that threatens to swallow up all the other words around it’. Just recently, a study investigating the potential explanatory power of the term for understanding the long-term evolution of evaluative bibliometric systems in a set of societies found that ‘if used without clarification, “neoliberalism” is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful’ (Hammarfelt and Hallonsten, 2023: 414).…”

Who is to blame? Evaluations in academia spreading through relationships among multiple actor types

“…In many countries, regulators stand behind universities to provide them with legitimacy and resources (cf. Hammarfelt and Hallonsten, this volume). This also implies that regulators have strong interests in monitoring whether universities are following rules as well as in assessing how they are using resources (Musselin, 2013).…”