Valorizing SSH research: Towards a new approach to evaluate SSH research’ value for society

Galleron, Ioana; Ochsner, Michael; Spaapen, Jack; Williams, Geoffrey

doi:10.22163/fteval.2017.274

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The arguments that are outlined-such as complaints about the use of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines or scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality quantitatively-are arguments that have already been observed by other studies for different branches of the humanities (Hammarfelt, 2017;Thelwall & Delgado, 2015;. Thus, philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain state that qualitative evaluation is the most appropriate method for the evaluation of their field, a stance that we know is generally expressed for the humanities (Galleron et al, 2017;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018). It is also significant that when asked in the survey about which is the best quality criterion, peer review was the one most highly valued by researchers, with the qualitative criterion based on reading and evaluation being precisely the one that is recognised as specific to the discipline.…”

Section: Discussion/conclusionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The geographical scope of the studies conducted on the reception of bibliometric indicators in the humanities has been both transnational and national. Cross-national studies (Galleron et al, 2017) include work that focuses specifically on the representations of young researchers as well as the perceptions of humanities researchers (Jamali et al, 2020;. On the other hand, there is information available for specific countries such as Switzerland, Australia or Russia (Hug et al, 2014;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018;Narayan et al, 2018;Grinëv, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies that focus on analysing the perceptions of researchers in the humanities have highlighted a number of aspects. For example, attention has been drawn to researchers' criticism of the use of methods considered to belong to other disciplines, reservations about the use of quantification of research quality or the lack of consensus on the quality criteria shared between different areas (Bayer et al, 2019;Galleron et al, 2017;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018;Hug et al, 2014). There is also a widespread feeling of frustration on the part of humanities researchers (Giménez-Toledo, 2016;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018), while others report that humanities researchers show a certain lack of knowledge about how journals improve their performance on metrics (Narayan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Feenstra

López-Cózar

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge and stance of researchers regarding bibliometric indicators is a field of study that has gained weight in recent decades. In this paper we address this issue for the little explored areas of philosophy and ethics, and applied to a context, in this case Spain, where bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluation processes. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. The survey data suggest that researchers do not consider bibliometric indicators a preferred criterion of quality, while there is a fairly high self-perception of awareness of a number of indicators. The qualitative data points to a generalised perception of a certain rejection of the specific use of indicators, with four main positions being observed: (1) disqualification of the logic of metrics, (2) scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality with quantitative methods, (3) complaints about the incorporation of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines, and (4) criticism of the consequences that this generates in the discipline of philosophy.

show abstract

Section: Discussion/conclusionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Feenstra

López-Cózar

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the state, university or an agency) are methodological aspects of evaluation. Systematic comparisons of how research is evaluated in different countries and typologies of national evaluation practices, however, appeared much later (Coryn et al, 2007;Galleron et al, 2017;Geuna et al, 1999;Geuna & Martin, 2003;Hicks, 2010;Jonkers & Zacharewicz, 2016;Lepori et al, 2007;Lepori et al, 2018;Ochsner et al, 2018;Von Tunzelmann & Kraemer Mbula, 2003). Such classifications differ regarding which of the three differentiations they consider in their endeavour.…”

Section: Typologies Of National Evaluation Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

National research evaluation systems and the social sciences

Ochsner¹

2022

Handbook on Research Assessment in the Social Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many countries have introduced national evaluation exercises. The methods commonly applied have been developed for the natural and life sciences and are criticized for being ill-adapted to the social sciences. After giving an overview of different classifications of countries' evaluation procedures, we present an empirically derived typology of national research evaluation systems that takes into account whether adaptations to disciplinary specificities, such as social sciences knowledge production and dissemination practices, are considered. The analysis shows that national evaluation systems are diverse and complex combinations of research evaluation practices at the national, regional and institutional level, including the influence of the international level on research funding of projects and careers. We conclude that diversity rather than standardisation in evaluation practices is key to reach the aim of evaluation: to provide researchers and university administrators with a tool to improve their organisation and research practice.

show abstract

“…Focusing on disciplines that are commonly clustered as SSH research, it is our aim to showcase disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts as important factors that influence how researchers assess academic achievements within their peer communities. While research assessment in the SSH has attracted much attention in the last few years (e.g., Ochsner et al, 2012 ; Archambault et al, 2013 ; Lauer, 2016 ; Galleron et al, 2017 ), we should be alert to the fact that the SSH have been constructed against and in contrast to the natural and exact sciences. Thus, when speaking of the SSH, we need to keep in mind that on no account can we consider them to be a homogeneously organized entity (van den Akker, 2016 ) 1 and that, when speaking of research practices and preferences in the SSH, we need to be alert that individual standpoints and behaviors are subsumed in collective practices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Bayer

Gorraiz

Gumpenberger

et al. 2019

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we comparatively analyze, present and discuss the results from a survey on increasing the visibility of research achievements in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) that was carried out at the University of Vienna (Austria) and the University of Navarra (Spain) in 2016 and 2017. Covering four major topics-searching and finding literature, publishing, the visibility of research, and the assessment of research outputs-we ask the following questions: are there disciplinary differences to be identified, and how do they present themselves in the two institutional contexts? Discussing the results, we showcase how disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts are important factors that influence research and publication practices in the SSH. Our results indicate that the practices of searching and finding literature as well as publication practices and behavior are shaped by disciplinary traditions and epistemic cultures. On the contrary, assessment and valuation of research outputs are influenced by institutional and national contexts in which SSH research is organized and carried out.

show abstract

Valorizing SSH research: Towards a new approach to evaluate SSH research’ value for society

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

National research evaluation systems and the social sciences

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About