Scientific Performance Assessments Through a Gender Lens

Abstract

The focus on excellence and quality assurance in the academy has spawned a signifi cant increase in the use of bibliometric measures in performance assessments of individual researchers. This article investigates the organizational consequences of this development through a gender lens. Based on a qualitative case study of evaluation and selection practices at a Danish university, a number of potential gender biases related to the use of bibliometric performance measures are identifi ed. By taking as default the research preferences, approaches and career paths of a succesful group of predominantly male scholars, evaluators using bibliometrics risk disadvantaging candidates diverging from the norm with implications for gender stratifi cation. Despite these potential biases, bibliometric measures come to function as technologies supporting a managerial narrative of the gender-blind organization. They adhere to the prevailing ethos of the academic meritocracy by standardizing the criteria for organizational advancement and ensuring transparency and accountability in the selection process. While bibliometric tools in this sense may lead to the recruitment of scientists with a strong CV and track record, they may at the same time prevent many talented researchers diverging from the norm from being recognized and succeed as academics.

Google Scholar and Web of Science: Examining gender differences in citation coverage across five scientific disciplines

“…Another limitation concerns the basic presumption that guide our simulated hiring experiment: that decision-makers use h-indices to select between candidates in individual performance assessments. While a number of studies document the use of h-indices in academic hiring and funding decisions (Barnes, 2014;Marzolla, 2016;Nielsen, 2018;Van den Brink et al, 2013), we still lack evidence on how widespread the evaluative use of h-indices may be in funding and hiring decisions.…”

“…to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring or funding decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. Existing research documents the use of h-indices in academic hiring and funding decisions in the medical and natural sciences(Barnes, 2014;Marzolla, 2016;Nielsen, 2018;Van den Brink et al, 2013), but we still lack evidence of its general prevalence in such evaluative practices. Further, the use of h-indices tend to be less prevalent in the social sciences than in the natural and health sciences.…”

Diferencias y sesgos de género en la financiación de la investigación: un enfoque dinámico

“…Los que abogan por el uso de criterios bibliométricos alegan que estas métricas son neutrales con respecto al género. Otros, más críticos, sostienen que la bibliometría, cuando se usa a para evaluar individuos y no instituciones, puede contribuir a perpetuar desigualdades previas, y que, en cualquier caso, los indicadores bibliométricos son proxies del mérito, a veces descontextualizados (Nielsen, 2018). Un ejemplo muy citado es del índice h, que está sesgado hacia los investigadores que publican en sub-campos con altas tasas de citación, que se correlaciona con el número de publicaciones y por lo tanto con la edad académica, y además privilegia la publicación con múltiples coautores, algo que coloca en desventaja a las mujeres (Abramo et al, 2013).…”

Kjønnsbalanse gjennom aksjonsforskning og lokal kunnskaping

“…Kollegiale relasjoner preger på en avgjørende måte arbeidsmiljøet. I et kjønnslikestillingsperspektiv kan den kollegiale organisasjonsformen vaere et problem blant annet fordi den baserer seg på bruk av skjønn og dermed åpner for bruk av kjønnsforståelser som ofte privileger menn (Valian 1999, Nielsen 2018. Den gir også betydelige muligheter for uformell maktutøvelse som kan resultere i det Kanter (1977) kaller homososial reproduksjon.…”