Government research evaluations and academic freedom: a UK and Australian comparison

Martin-Sardesai, Ann; Irvine, Helen J.; Tooley, Stuart; Guthrie, James

doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1208156

Cited by 50 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This commentary's reflections on the impact of research performance management systems on accounting scholars is consistent with prior studies examining the increasing emphasis on academics' research production (Broadbent, 2016;Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018b). It also reflects on the findings of studies that indicate increased academic workload and related stress levels as a result of the various performance management systems instigated by universities over recent years (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2017;Martin-Sardesai et al, 2017b;Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018b). What scholars urgently need is a better appreciation of the rankings and metrics to which they are being subjected, an ability to interpret and critique their bases and relevance, and a strategic understanding of how they can better manage their scholarship and careers in this research measurement and evaluation context.…”

Section: In Conclusionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…For instance, high teaching loads because of signifcant numbers of local and international students (see, Guthrie and Martin-Sardesai, 2019). The experience of this editorial board member illustrates how metrics are being used to manage accounting academics and set unrealistic expectations, which can lead to significant health and career issues (Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2017;Martin-Sardesai et al, 2017a;Martin-Sardesai et al, 2017b;Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018b;Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie, 2018a;Martin-Sardesai et al, forthcoming). These iniquities are compounded by the inconsistencies present in out of date journal quality lists, such as that of the ABDC (De Villiers and Hsiao, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What counts for quality in interdisciplinary accounting research in the next decade

Guthrie

Parker

Dumay

et al. 2019

AAAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect upon the focus and changing nature of measuring academic accounting research quality. The paper addresses contemporary changes in academic publishing, metrics for determining research quality and the possible impacts on accounting scholars. These are considered in relation to the core values of interdisciplinary accounting research ‒ that is, the pursuit of novel, rigorous, significant and authentic research motivated by a passion for scholarship, curiosity and solving wicked problems. The impact of changing journal rankings and research citation metrics on the traditional and highly valued role of the accounting academic is further considered. In this setting, the paper also provides a summary of the journal’s activities for 2018, and in the future. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on contemporary data sets, the paper illustrates the increasingly diverse and confusing array of “evidence” brought to bear on the question of the relative quality of accounting research. Commercial products used to rate and rank journals, and judge the academic impact of individual scholars and their papers not only offer insight and visibility, but also have the potential to misinform scholars and their assessors. Findings In the move from simple journal ranking lists to big data and citations, and increasingly to concerns with impact and engagement, the authors identify several challenges facing academics and administrators alike. The individual academic and his or her contribution to scholarship are increasingly marginalised in the name of discipline, faculty and institutional performance. A growing university performance management culture within, for example, the UK and Australasia, has reached a stage in the past decade where publication and citation metrics are driving allocations of travel grants, research grants, promotions and appointments. With an expanded range of available metrics and products to judge their worth, or have it judged for them, scholars need to be increasingly informed of the nuanced or not-so-nuanced uses to which these measurement systems will be put. Narrow, restricted and opaque peer-based sources such as journal ranking lists are now being challenged by more transparent citation-based sources. Practical implications The issues addressed in this commentary offer a critical understanding of contemporary metrics and measurement in determining the quality of interdisciplinary accounting research. Scholars are urged to reflect upon the challenges they face in a rapidly moving context. Individuals are increasingly under pressure to seek out preferred publication outlets, developing and curating a personal citation profile. Yet such extrinsic outcomes may come at the cost of the core values that motivate the interdisciplinary scholar and research. Originality/value This paper provides a forward-looking focus on the critical role of academics in interdisciplinary accounting research.

show abstract

Section: In Conclusionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What counts for quality in interdisciplinary accounting research in the next decade

Guthrie

Parker

Dumay

et al. 2019

AAAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing emphasis is being placed in Australian universities on research productivity, impact, and quality (Martin-Sardesai, Irvine, Tooley, & Guthrie, 2017). At a university level, judgements based on these metrics are the basis for international and national ranking systems that in turn inform funding decisions, prestige, public perception, and student demand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conclusions: Indices of research productivity and impact are important when evaluating academic psychologists' performance, and the present article provides up-todate, comprehensive, and representative norms of Australian academic psychologists. Increasing emphasis is being placed in Australian universities on research productivity, impact, and quality (Martin-Sardesai, Irvine, Tooley, & Guthrie, 2017). At a university level, judgements based on these metrics are the basis for international and national ranking systems that in turn inform funding decisions, prestige, public perception, and student demand.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly productivity and citation impact of Australian academic psychologists

Mazzucchelli

Burton

Roberts

2019

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study sought to provide up-to-date normative data on the productivity and citation impact of publications by Australian academic psychologists at each academic level (lecturer to professor) and for each university grouping (e.g., Group of Eight [Go8], Australian Technology Network, etc.). Method: Publication and citation data for a representative sample of 732 psychology academics were extracted using the Scopus database. Norms for lifetime publications, citations, and h-index were developed for each academic level and were compared with those reported in previous studies. Results: Judgements of academic level based on number of publications, citations and h-indexes are highly reliable with publication means for the ranks roughly doubling, and citation means more than doubling, for each successive level. Lifetime publication means have increased by a factor of 2 to 3 since the norms published in 2010, consistent with the suggestion that rates of scholarly publication have increased over the last decade. Academics at the research-intensive Go8 universities had, as a group, significantly higher publication averages at every level than academics at other universities; however, these differences varied considerably in size across the university groupings. Conclusions: Indices of research productivity and impact are important when evaluating academic psychologists' performance, and the present article provides up-todate, comprehensive, and representative norms of Australian academic psychologists.

show abstract

“…This approach is somewhat outdated, and is overly concerned with discerning general personality profiles for academics in specific disciplines (Helson & Crutchfield, 1970;Rushton, Murray, & Paunonen, 1983). Moreover, these studies do not account for the changes to the academic profession and work in recent decades, which have been strongly influenced by research assessments, institutional pressures towards performativity, 'publish or perish' dynamics and demands that research impact is evidenced (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2017;Kenny, 2018;Martin-Sardesai, Irvine, Tooley, & Guthrie, 2017). These changes to the current working environment in academia are bound to influence academics' behaviours and strategies concerning their research agendas (e.g., Brew & Lucas, 2009;Horta & Santos, 2019;Leisyte, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The association of thinking styles with research agendas among academics in the social sciences

Santos

Horta

Zhang

2019

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research agendas are understudied, despite being key to academic knowledge creation. The literature suggests that the ways that academics determine their research agendas are conditioned by individual, organisational and environmental characteristics. This study explores the cognitive aspects of academics' research agendas in the social sciences by using a theory on thinking styles as an analytical framework. The results suggest that the research agendas of academics in the social sciences are significantly associated with their thinking styles. These findings aid understanding of how academics set their research agendas. This study also represents an important landmark in research on thinking styles, focusing on academic research work as a potential venue for further studies. The findings are relevant for policymakers, research funding agencies, university administrators and academics because they have implications for academic research development processes, outcomes, and for research and academic identity socialisation during doctoral studies.

show abstract

Government research evaluations and academic freedom: a UK and Australian comparison

Cited by 50 publications

References 62 publications

What counts for quality in interdisciplinary accounting research in the next decade

What counts for quality in interdisciplinary accounting research in the next decade

Scholarly productivity and citation impact of Australian academic psychologists

The association of thinking styles with research agendas among academics in the social sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About