| 1. |
- de Rijcke, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Research Evaluation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0958-2029 .- 1471-5449. ; 25:2, s. 1-9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This review of the international literature on evaluation systems, evaluation practices, and metrics (mis)uses was written as part of a larger review commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to inform their independent assessment of the role of metrics in research evaluation (2014–5). The literature on evaluation systems, practices, and effects of indicator uses is extremely heterogeneous: it comprises hundreds of sources published in different media, spread over disciplines, and with considerable variation in the nature of the evidence. A condensation of the state-of-the-art in relevant research is therefore highly timely. Our reviewpresents the main strands in the literature, with a focus on empirical materials about possible effects of evaluation exercises, ‘gaming’ of indicators, and strategic responses by scientific communities and others to requirements in research assessments. In order to increase visibility and availability, an adapted and updated review is presented here as a stand-alone—after authorizationby HEFCE.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Indicators as judgment devices : The use of bibliometrics for evaluating candidates for professorships in biomedicine and economics
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of 21st Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy (NWB’2016). - : Aalborg University. ; , s. 7-7
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The number of publications has been a fundamental merit in the competition for academic positions since the late 18th century. Today, the simple counting of publications has been supplemented with a whole range of bibliometric measures, which supposedly not only measure the volume of research but also its impact. In this study, we investigate how bibliometrics are used for evaluating the impact and quality of publications in two specific settings: biomedicine and economics. Our study exposes the extent and type of metrics used in external evaluations of candidates for academic positions at Swedish universities. Moreover, we show how different bibliometric indicators, both explicitly and implicitly, are employed to value and rank candidates. Our findings contribute to a further understanding of bibliometric indicators as “judgment devices” employed to evaluate individuals and their published works within specific fields. We also show how “expertise” in using bibliometrics for evaluative purposes is negotiated at the interface between domain knowledge and skills in using indicators. In fact, examiners in these documents emerge as experts in three roles: 1) as domain experts 2) experts on metrics and 3) experts on how metrics are used and valued within their field. In short expertise here means evaluating not only publications but also judgment devices. In line with these results we propose that the use of metrics in this context is best described as a form of “citizen biblometrics” – an underspecified term which we build upon in this paper.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hammarfelt, Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantified academic selves : the gamification of research through social networking services
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Information research. - 1368-1613. ; 21:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction. Our study critically engages with techniques of self-quantification in contemporary academia, by demonstrating how social networking services enact research and scholarly communication as a 'game'.Method. The empirical part of the study involves an analysis of two leading platforms: Impactstory and ResearchGate. Observed qualities of these platforms will be analyzed in detail with concrete examples of gaming features in focus. Subsequently, we relate the development of these digital platforms to a broader 'quantified self movement'. Special attention will also be paid to how these platforms contribute to a general quantification of the academic (authorial) self. Theory. Theoretically we relate the 'gamification' of research to neoliberal ideas about markets and competition. Our analysis then extends to long-standing and fundamental ideas about self-betterment expressed in the philosophy of Peter Sloterdijk. Findings. Our study shows how social networking services, such as ResearchGate and Impactstory, enact researchers as 'entrepreneurs of themselves' in a marketplace of ideas, and the quantification of scholarly reputation to a single number plays an important role in this process. Moreover, the technologies that afford these types of quantifiable interactions affect the 'unfolding ontology' of algorithmic academic identities. Conclusions. The gamification of quantified academic selves intensifies the competitive nature of scholarship, it commodifies academic outputs and it might lead to goal displacement and cheating. However, self-quantification might also serve as a liberating and empowering activity for the individual researcher as alternative measures of impact and productivity are provided by these platforms.
|
|
