Epistemic Injustice in Research Evaluation: A Cultural Analysis of the Humanities and Physics in Estonia

Lõhkivi, Endla; Velbaum, Katrin; Eigi, Jaana

doi:10.12697/spe.2012.5.2.08

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research evaluation practice should take into consideration differences between scientific disciplines; otherwise, it risks epistemic injustice between disciplines. Current scientometric practices are better suited for laboratory sciences than for the humanities because they serve more disciplines aimed to create facts than disciplines aimed to enhance understanding (Lohkivi et al, 2012). Evaluation practices should be improved to better conform to epistemic aims of disciplines, which creates understanding between cultures by sharing knowledge contained in sources written in those cultures’ languages.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current scientometric indexes do not encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in academic texts and researchers are not motivated to cite texts written in smaller languages. This diminishes the cultural diversity of the sources cited and limits the representation of small and indigenous cultures. This text proposes a scientometric measure designed to encourage the linguistic diversity of sources cited in articles, books, and papers. The Linguistic Diversity Index is based on two stipulations: (a) the more linguistically diverse the sources, the higher the score, and (b) the rarer the languages cited, the higher the score. If such a metric were used for the evaluation of social science and humanities journals, it would encourage the publication of papers that cite ideas from rarely represented cultural groups such as indigenous nations, ethnic groups from small countries, and other linguistic groups that have been omitted from mainstream scientific discourse. This might help to produce new research, which would help to improve the situation for these groups and create an epistemology that is more just to small cultural groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A mismatch between the aims and values of a discipline on the one hand and the assumptions involved in quality evaluation on the other is a worrying possibility. Such a mismatch may result in valuable knowledge not being recognized as such or not being produced in the first place [ 58 ]. With OS, this possibility becomes more pressing and more widespread, since potentially many more aspects of science will be open to much wider evaluation by various parties.…”

Section: Science and Its Many Varieties Of Pluralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse sources of normativity in open science and their implications for ethical governance

Simm,

Eigi-Watkin

2024

R. Soc. Open Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, open science (OS) has emerged as a global science policy and research initiative with implications for most aspects of research, including planning, funding, publishing, evaluation, data sharing and access. As OS has gained increasing prominence, it has also faced substantial criticism. Whether it is the worries about the equality of access associated with open-access publishing or the more recent allegations of OS benefitting those who act in the private interest without giving back to OS, there are, indeed, many potential as well as actual harms that can be linked to the practice of OS. These criticisms often revolve around ethical challenges and fairness concerns, prompting the question of whether a comprehensive ethical governance framework is needed for OS. This commentary contends that owing to the heterogeneous nature of the normative foundations of OS and the inherent diversity within scientific practices, a pluralistic and deliberative approach to governance is needed.

show abstract

“…injustice" (Fricker, 2009) of research evaluation in SS&H as authors are publishing in a form and language that may run counter to cultural (national) values and goals, thus alienating academics from the general public of their own countries (Lõhkivi, Velbaum, & Eigi, 2012;Schuermans, Meeus, & De Maesschalck, 2010).…”

Section: Adjusting Publication Behavior In Ssandhmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication and Citation Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A National Perspective

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the perspective of non-Anglophone countries, accountability, liability, and capacity of scientific research is often related to the process of internationalization. The article explores the effects of this process on the example of publication and citation patterns of Serbian scholars. Results of the analysis are mostly in line with the common conceptions about the differences among scientific disciplines. Authors in social sciences and humanities have manifested more nationally oriented publication and citation behavior, tendency to cite older literature, and stronger preference towards non-journal literature. However, huge individual differences among scholars and some inconsistencies between their publication and citation patterns, reveal a form of latent conflict between the accustomed publishing behavior in social sciences and humanities and the new dynamics of knowledge production. This conflict obscures the notion of typical or expected behavior of scholars in certain disciplines and has important implications for research evaluation. Scholars in social sciences and humanities were not so eager and successful in shifting their communication to the international arena. For them, national journals still play a crucial role in the “local” information exchange. But the question is how one transitional country that is facing serious structural challenges and weak economy can afford to support “locally relevant” research projects and whether national journals have become a mere tool for an ungainly customized research evaluation in the social sciences and humanities.

show abstract

Epistemic Injustice in Research Evaluation: A Cultural Analysis of the Humanities and Physics in Estonia

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

Linguistic Diversity Index: A Scientometric Measure to Enhance the Relevance of Small and Minority Group Languages

Diverse sources of normativity in open science and their implications for ethical governance

Publication and Citation Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A National Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About