Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas

Butler, Linda

doi:10.3152/147154403781776780

Cited by 127 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The growing use of indicators and their "constitutive effects" (Dahler-Larsen 2014) on academic life and work have been highlighted for some time by way of analyses on ranking (Hazelkorn 2015) and indicator use (Butler 2003, Weingart 2005). 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.…”

Section: The Epistemic Impact Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, indicator use might lead to goal displacement where scoring high according to the assessment criteria becomes a goal in itself rather than a way of measuring whether certain goals are met (Butler 2003, Colwell et al 2012. In publishing, this may result both in a gaming of metrics, such as in the emergence of strategic "citation cartels," as well as in the attempt to "salami" the results of a specific of project into a maximum amount of "least publishable units" (Martin 2013).…”

Section: The Epistemic Impact Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<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

Section: The Epistemic Impact Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…Grund dafür ist, dass Umfang und Art der Publikationsaktivitäten von einer Vielzahl von Faktoren abhängen und daher die Zurechnung der Veränderung des Publikationsaufkommens auf eine bestimmte Ursache naturgemäß schwierig ist. Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang eine Untersuchung von Linda Butler (2003). Sie ermittelt einen deutlichen Anstieg von Publikationen australischer Universitäten im Science Citation Index für sämtliche untersuchte Disziplinen.…”

Section: Der Zitations-index Als Vergleichsinstrumentunclassified

Bibliometrie in der Forschungsevaluation. Zur Konstitution und Funktionslogik wechselseitiger Beobachtung zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik1

Taubert

2012

Quoten, Kurven Und Profile

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This quantity-based research evaluation system gives one DEST point to each non-book publication (including journal articles, conference or symposium papers, chapters in books) and includes a fractional count to reflect the number of co-authors (Yang & Terjesen, 2007). With every DEST point worth $3,000 government funding (Butler, 2003), the system clearly matters for Australian universities and affects the faculty publication practices. The focus of the DEST system on quantitative indicator encouraged Australian academics to pursue numbers rather than quality and contributed to the unique "high volume and low impact" phenomenon of research output (Harzing, 2005).…”

Section: Management Research In Australia: Why Lag Behind the Us And mentioning

confidence: 99%