2007
DOI: 10.3152/030234207x254404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
72
0
5

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
72
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Structurally, it is axiomatic that no professional field can remain professional in the proper sense of the term without the existence of boundaries that distinguish its particular forms of knowledge production from others, and one of the boundaries is a peer-controlled assessment system paying primary heed to the scientific quality of knowledge produced by research. This can explain the abandonment of HEFCE's initial plans for a metricsonly evaluation framework in spite of evidence that retrospective metrics predict the actual RAE results reasonably well (Butler, 2007;Butler and McAllister, 2009): for the issue was not the results themselves but the integrity of professional identities as self-regulated projects and reflexive communities 14 . Conversely, however, a defining characteristic of professions is the accomplishment of specialised tasks that are socially necessary, and some types of research and researcher are linked to a discourse of professionalism that emphasises the capacity to apply scientific methods to societal problems, working closely with "users" (Felt and Stöckelová, 2009, p.109).…”
Section: Discussion: Rebalancing Academic Autonomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Structurally, it is axiomatic that no professional field can remain professional in the proper sense of the term without the existence of boundaries that distinguish its particular forms of knowledge production from others, and one of the boundaries is a peer-controlled assessment system paying primary heed to the scientific quality of knowledge produced by research. This can explain the abandonment of HEFCE's initial plans for a metricsonly evaluation framework in spite of evidence that retrospective metrics predict the actual RAE results reasonably well (Butler, 2007;Butler and McAllister, 2009): for the issue was not the results themselves but the integrity of professional identities as self-regulated projects and reflexive communities 14 . Conversely, however, a defining characteristic of professions is the accomplishment of specialised tasks that are socially necessary, and some types of research and researcher are linked to a discourse of professionalism that emphasises the capacity to apply scientific methods to societal problems, working closely with "users" (Felt and Stöckelová, 2009, p.109).…”
Section: Discussion: Rebalancing Academic Autonomymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method has been used increasingly by academic, research, and public institutions worldwide for policymaking, to monitor scientific developments, and as a basis for promotions, tenure, hiring, salary, and grant decisions (Borgman * Weingart 2005). Several governments have been using or are considering using citation analysis and other bibliometric measures to make decisions regarding research quality assessment and the allocation of research funds in higher education (Adam 2002;Butler 2007;Moed 2008;Weingart 2005). The most popular rankings are those that use publications and citations as indicators of scientific worth (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SSH scholars anticipate many dysfunctional effects such as mainstreaming or conservative effects of indicators, a loss of diversity of research topics or disciplines due to selection effects introduced by the use of indicators, or importance of spectacular research findings leading to unethical reporting of findings (Fisher et al, 2000;Andersen et al, 2009;Hose, 2009;Burrows, 2012). More and more such negative steering effects of indicators are observed also in the natural sciences (Butler, 2003(Butler, , 2007Mojon-Azzi et al, 2003;Moonesinghe et al, 2007; Unreliable research. Trouble at the lab, 2013).…”
Section: Bibliometrics and Scientometrics In Ssh Research Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To assess research performance, there should be an explicit understanding of what "good" research is, since any assessment points out "high quality" research or tries to judge which research is "better" (Butler, 2007). However, not much is known what actually research quality means (see e.g.…”
Section: Ssh Research Practices and Criteria For Research Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%