1
|
Tijdink JK, Valkenburg G, Rijcke SD, Dix G. Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0307814. [PMID: 39231163 PMCID: PMC11373834 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/11/2024] [Indexed: 09/06/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research. METHODS We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities. RESULTS In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance. CONCLUSION Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions. TRIAL REGISTRATION Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joeri K Tijdink
- AmsterdamUMC, Department of Ethics, Health and Humanities, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Philosophy, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaram, Bandung, Indonesia
| | - Govert Valkenburg
- Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Sarah de Rijcke
- Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Guus Dix
- Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith RDJ, Schäfer S, Bernstein MJ. Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 2024; 54:377-404. [PMID: 37974362 PMCID: PMC11118785 DOI: 10.1177/03063127231205043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2023]
Abstract
This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, 'responsible innovation', is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points-agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation-would allow funding organizations and researchers to look 'beyond the project', developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stefan Schäfer
- Research Institute for Sustainability–Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
| | - Michael J Bernstein
- Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna, Austria
- Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Falkenberg R, Sigl L, Fochler M. From 'making lists' to conducting 'well-rounded' studies: Epistemic re-orientations in soil microbial ecology. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 2024; 54:78-104. [PMID: 37387230 PMCID: PMC10832317 DOI: 10.1177/03063127231179700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/01/2023]
Abstract
Soil microbial ecology is a relatively young research field that became established around the middle of the 20th century and has grown considerably since then. We analyze two epistemic re-orientations in the field, asking how possibilities for creating do-able problems within current conditions of research governance and researchers' collective sense-making about new, more desirable modes of research were intertwined in these developments. We show that a first re-orientation towards molecular omics studies was comparably straightforward to bring about, because it allowed researchers to gain resources for their work and to build careers-in other words, to create do-able problems. Yet, over time this mode of research developed into a scientific bandwagon from which researchers found it difficult to depart, even as they considered this kind of work as producing mostly descriptive studies rather than exploring interesting and important ecological questions. Researchers currently wish to re-orient their field again, towards a new mode of conducting 'well-rounded' interdisciplinary and ecologically-relevant studies. This re-orientation is, however, not easy to put into practice. In contrast to omics studies, this new mode of research does not easily enable the creation of do-able problems for two reasons. First, it is not as readily 'packaged' and hence more difficult to align with institutional and funding frameworks as well as with demands for productivity and career building. Second, while the first re-orientation was part of a broader exciting bandwagon across the life sciences and promised apparent discoveries, the current re-orientation goes along with a different sense of novelty, exploring complex environmental relations and building an understanding at the intersection of disciplines, instead of pushing a clearly circumscribed frontier. Ultimately, our analysis raises questions about whether current conditions of research governance structurally privilege particular kinds of scientific re-orientation over others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lisa Sigl
- University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Falkenberg R, Fochler M. Innovation in Technology Instead of Thinking? Assetization and Its Epistemic Consequences in Academia. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 2024; 49:105-130. [PMID: 38046187 PMCID: PMC10691956 DOI: 10.1177/01622439221140003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
This paper draws on the notion of the asset to better understand the role of innovative research technologies in researchers' practices and decisions. Faced with both the need to accumulate academic capital to make a living in academia and with many uncertainties about the future, researchers must find ways to anticipate future academic revenues. We illustrate that innovative research technologies provide a suitable means for doing so: First, because they promise productivity through generating interesting data and hence publications. Second, because they allow a signaling of innovativeness in contexts where research is evaluated, even across disciplinary boundaries. As such, enrolling innovative research technologies as assets allows researchers to bridge partly conflicting valuations of productivity and innovativeness they are confronted with. However, the employment of innovative technologies in anticipation of future academic revenues is not always aligned with what researchers value epistemically. Nevertheless, considerations about potential future academic revenues derived from innovative research technologies sometimes seem to override particular epistemic valuations. Illustrating these dynamics, we show that processes of assetization in academia can have significant epistemic consequences which are important to unpack.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth Falkenberg
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Austria
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Austria
| | - Maximilian Fochler
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fuoco RE, Kwiatkowski CF, Birnbaum LS, Blum A. Effective communications strategies to increase the impact of environmental health research. Environ Health 2023; 22:47. [PMID: 37460989 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-023-00997-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2023] [Indexed: 07/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are the subject of a growing body of research with the potential to positively impact public and ecological health. However, to effect positive change, findings must be communicated beyond the scientific community. OBJECTIVE We sought to (a) evaluate the relationships between communications strategy, media attention, and scholarly citations of PFAS research and (b) offer guidance for researchers and communications professionals who would like to publicize future work and increase its impact. METHODS We analyzed 273 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies on PFAS human health impacts with publication years 2018-2020, as collected by a pre-existing database. We investigated whether a press release was issued, open-access status, abstract and press release readability, timing of publication and press release distribution, journal impact factor, study type and sample size, statistical significance of finding(s), number of scholarly citations, and the Altmetric Attention Score (a measure of media attention). DISCUSSION Of papers reporting a statistically significant association with health harm, those with a press release received 20 times more media attention (as assessed by Altmetric scores) than those that did not. However, only 6.2% of all papers and 7.8% of significant papers issued one. Among papers with a press release, media attention was positively correlated with better abstract and press release readability and speed in issuing the press release. Scholarly citations were positively correlated with media attention, presence of a press release, and open-access status. CONCLUSION Most papers with significant findings on PFAS are published without a press release and receive little or no media attention. This reduces the likelihood that important research is reaching the public and decisionmakers who can translate science into action. Issuing a press release and receiving media attention also appear to increase scholarly citations. We provide recommendations for authors to increase the reach and impact of future papers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Carol F Kwiatkowski
- Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA
- Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA
| | - Linda S Birnbaum
- Scientist Emeritus, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Arlene Blum
- Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA
- Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
de Frutos-Belizón J, García-Carbonell N, Ruíz-Martínez M, Sánchez-Gardey G. Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile? RESEARCH POLICY 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104779] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/03/2023]
|
7
|
Davies SR, Pham BC. Luck and the 'situations' of research. SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 2023; 53:287-299. [PMID: 36190147 PMCID: PMC10041570 DOI: 10.1177/03063127221125438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
This research note uses material from interviews with senior scholars in the natural sciences to highlight, and start to explore, the role and nature of 'luck' in scientific careers. By examining this in the context of STS work on the nature of contemporary academia, we argue for the importance of taking luck seriously as we interrogate life and work in research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah R Davies
- Sarah R Davies, Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Wien 1010, Austria.
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sigl L, Falkenberg R, Fochler M. Changing articulations of relevance in soil science: Diversity and (potential) synergy of epistemic commitments in a scientific discipline. STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 2023; 97:79-90. [PMID: 36634376 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.12.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2022] [Revised: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/14/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
This paper traces how the self-understanding of soil science has changed in relation to ideas of societal relevance and academic legitimacy. While soil science was established as an academic discipline with strong links to agriculture, this link was largely lost around 1980. This led to a perceived crisis of the discipline, which has been followed by a long process of redefining its self-understanding. Building on document analysis and qualitative interviews, this paper traces five ways in which soil scientists have re-articulated the relevance of soil science, and analyses if and how these re-articulations are linked to new kinds of research practices and new self-understandings of soil science as a discipline. We conceptualise these re-articulations of relevance as different epistemic commitments that have provided soil scientists with a repertoire of relating their research to societal and environmental problems. At the same time, we also highlight how this epistemic diversity has created tensions in the discipline's self-understanding. Related to recent calls to further integrate different kinds of soil-related knowledge, we argue that these tensions still need to be turned into productive interaction to create synergy instead of competition between different ways of articulating relevance-allowing different kinds of soil-related research to thrive, both in their distinct regimes of relevance, and in a fruitful co-production. This paper shows that studies of how ways of articulating relevance change over time can provide new insights to debates about what conditions support science in gaining societal relevance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Sigl
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Austria.
| | - Ruth Falkenberg
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Austria
| | - Maximilian Fochler
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Austria; Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Robinson-Garcia N, Costas R, Nane GF, van Leeuwen TN. Valuation regimes in academia: Researchers’ attitudes towards their diversity of activities and academic performance. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2023. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Evaluation systems have been long criticized for abusing and misusing bibliometric indicators. This has created a culture by which academics are constantly exposing their daily work to the standards they are expected to perform. In this study, we investigate whether researchers’ own values and expectations are in line with the expectations of the evaluation system. We conduct a multiple case study of five departments in two Dutch universities to examine how they balance between their own valuation regimes and the evaluation schemes. For this, we combine curriculum analysis with a series of semi-structured interviews. We propose a model to study the diversity of academic activities and apply it to the multiple case study to understand how such diversity is shaped by discipline and career stage. We conclude that the observed misalignment is not only resulting from an abuse of metrics but also by a lack of tools to evaluate performance in a contextualized and adaptable way.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolas Robinson-Garcia
- EC3 Research Group, Departamento de Información y Comunicación, Colegio Máximo de Cartuja s/n, 18071, Universidad de Granada, Granada , Spain
- Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, Building 36 Mekelweg 4 2628 CD Delft , Netherlands
| | - Rodrigo Costas
- Centre for Science and Technology Sutides (CWTS), Leiden University, Willem Einthoven Building Kolffpad 1 2333 BN Leiden , The Netherlands
- Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST), Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Krotoa Building Building, 52 Ryneveld Street, Stellenbosch, 7600 , South Africa
| | - Gabriela F Nane
- Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, TU Delft, Building 36 Mekelweg 4 2628 CD Delft , Netherlands
| | - Thed N van Leeuwen
- Centre for Science and Technology Sutides (CWTS), Leiden University, Willem Einthoven Building Kolffpad 1 2333 BN Leiden , The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Brunet L, Müller R. Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
The European Research Council (ERC) receives many high-quality applications, but funds only a few. We analyze how members of ERC review panels assess applications in the first, highly competitive step of evaluations for ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants. Drawing on interviews with ERC panel members in different fields, we show that they adopt a set of evaluation devices that offer pragmatic and standardized ways of evaluating in a time-constrained and highly competitive setting. Through the use of evaluation devices, panel reviewers enact and generate a distinct reviewing expertise that encompasses subject-specific knowledge and knowledge about how to accomplish evaluation within a situated setting. We find that ERC panel reviewers employ four evaluation devices during the first step of ERC reviews: first, reviewers base judgments on applicants’ prior achievements (delegation devices); second, they adjust their evaluations of individual applications to the quality of a given set of applications (calibration devices); third, they combine multiple elements to assess the feasibility of proposals (articulation devices); and finally, they consider the impact of the proposed research on science and society (contribution devices). We show that the current use of these devices generates what we have termed evaluative pragmatism: a mode of reviewing that is shaped by and accommodated to the need to review many high-quality proposals in a short time period with possibly limited expert knowledge. In conclusion, we discuss how the prevalence of evaluative pragmatism in the first step of ERC panel reviews shapes candidate selection, particularly regarding human and epistemic diversity in European research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucas Brunet
- Department of Science, Technology and Society (STS), School of Social Sciences and Technology, Department of Economics and Policy, School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21 , 80333 Munich, Germany
| | - Ruth Müller
- Department of Science, Technology and Society (STS), School of Social Sciences and Technology, Department of Economics and Policy, School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21 , 80333 Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kindsiko E, Rõigas K, Niinemets Ü. Getting funded in a highly fluctuating environment: Shifting from excellence to luck and timing. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0277337. [PMID: 36342950 PMCID: PMC9639839 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277337] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Recent data highlights the presence of luck in research grant allocations, where most vulnerable are early-career researchers. The national research funding contributes typically the greatest share of total research funding in a given country, fulfilling simultaneously the roles of promoting excellence in science, and most importantly, development of the careers of young generation of scientists. Yet, there is limited supply of studies that have investigated how do early-career researchers stand compared to advanced-career level researchers in case of a national research grant system. We analyzed the Estonian national highly competitive research grant funding across different fields of research for a ten-year-period between 2013-2022, including all the awarded grants for this period (845 grants, 658 individual principal investigators, PI). The analysis was conducted separately for early-career and advanced-career researchers. We aimed to investigate how the age, scientific productivity and the previous grant success of the PI vary across a national research system, by comparing early- and advanced-career researchers. The annual grant success rates varied between 14% and 28%, and within the discipline the success rate fluctuated across years even between 0-67%. The year-to-year fluctuations in grant success were stronger for early-career researchers. The study highlights how the seniority does not automatically deliver better research performance, at some fields, younger PIs outperform older cohorts. Also, as the size of the available annual grants fluctuates remarkably, early-career researchers are most vulnerable as they can apply for the starting grant only within a limited "time window".
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eneli Kindsiko
- School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Kärt Rõigas
- School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Early-Career Complementologists (ECCO) - Past achievements and future directions. Mol Immunol 2022; 151:158-165. [PMID: 36162224 DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2022.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
The Early-Career Complementologists (ECCO) is a task force that was established, in close collaboration with the European Complement Network (ECN) and the International Complement Society (ICS), with the specific mission to support and connect early-career researchers (ECRs) in the complement field. ECRs are junior scientists at the early stages of their training which include undergraduate as well as graduate students, Ph.D. graduates, and post-doctoral fellows. This unique population within the scientific community represents the next generation of scientific leaders. However, ECRs are faced with key challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted them. In this paper, we provide further insight into specific needs and challenges of ECRs in the complement field. We surveyed 52 ECRs in the complement field and assessed their perceptions of 1) mentor and peer support, 2) working conditions as well as 3) career interests and prospects. Furthermore, we review the various activities carried out by ECCO over the past years such as our social media presence, social events, and newly-created awards. We also discuss the future activities and events to be carried out by ECCO. Through these initiatives and activities, ECCO strives to boost collaborations between ECRs, provide recognition, and improve the visibility of their work. In addition, continuous joint efforts must also be made by the scientific community, research institutes, and funding organizations to nurture and invest in ECRs.
Collapse
|
13
|
Falkenberg R, Fochler M, Sigl L, Bürstmayr H, Eichorst S, Michel S, Oburger E, Staudinger C, Steiner B, Woebken D. The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science. EMBO Rep 2022; 23:e54772. [PMID: 35620860 PMCID: PMC9253743 DOI: 10.15252/embr.202254772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Revised: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Research needs a balance of risk-taking in "breakthrough projects" and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth Falkenberg
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic PracticeUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Maximilian Fochler
- Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Lisa Sigl
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic PracticeUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Hermann Bürstmayr
- Department of AgrobiotechnologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesTullnAustria
| | - Stephanie Eichorst
- Department of Microbiology and Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
| | - Sebastian Michel
- Department of AgrobiotechnologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesTullnAustria
| | - Eva Oburger
- Institute of Soil ResearchUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
| | - Christiana Staudinger
- Institute of Soil ResearchUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
| | - Barbara Steiner
- Department of AgrobiotechnologyUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesTullnAustria
| | - Dagmar Woebken
- Department of Microbiology and Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
PurposeThis paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.Design/methodology/approachFirst, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes competition and social acceleration. Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysis draws on works of Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.FindingsThe use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables. Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices; at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.Social implicationsAs metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in research practices.
Collapse
|
15
|
Jonker H, Vanlee F, Ysebaert W. Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium. Scientometrics 2022; 127:7289-7306. [PMID: 35502440 PMCID: PMC9045683 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04374-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today’s models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists’ attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Jonker
- Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), R&D Centraal, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Elsene, Belgium
| | - Florian Vanlee
- Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), R&D Centraal, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Elsene, Belgium
| | - Walter Ysebaert
- Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), R&D Centraal, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Elsene, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Felt U, Frantz F. RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2022; 28:14. [PMID: 35258720 PMCID: PMC8904341 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00365-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Issues related to research integrity receive increasing attention in policy discourse and beyond with most universities having introduced by now courses addressing issues of good scientific practice. While communicating expectations and regulations related to good scientific practice is essential, criticism has been raised that integrity courses do not sufficiently address discipline and career-stage specific dimensions, and often do not open up spaces for in-depth engagement. In this article, we present the card-based engagement method RESPONSE_ABILITY, which aims at supporting researchers in developing their ability to respond to challenges of good scientific practice. The method acknowledges that what counts and what does not count as acceptable practice may not be as clear-cut as imagined and that research environments matter when it comes to integrity issues. Using four sets of cards as stimulus material, participants are invited to reflect individually and collectively about questions of research integrity from different perspectives. This approach is meant to train them to negotiate in which contexts certain practices can still be regarded as acceptable and where possible transgressions might begin. RESPONSE_ABILITY can be seen as fostering the creation of an integrity culture as it invites a more reflexive engagement with ideals and realities of good practice and opens a space to address underlying value conflicts researchers may be confronted with. Concluding the article, we call for caution that addressing issues of integrity meaningfully requires striking a delicate balance between raising researchers' awareness of individual responsibilities and creating institutional environments that allow them to be response-able.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ulrike Felt
- Department for Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
| | - Florentine Frantz
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
AbstractIn solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the “gender solo research gap” among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through mean “individual solo publishing rates” found in “individual publication portfolios” constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database (“Polish Science Observatory”) with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N = 25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009–2018, including 18,900 solo articles.
Collapse
|
18
|
Krouwel SJC, Dierickx ER, Heesterbeek S, Klaassen P. Adopting Safe-by-Design in Science and Engineering Academia: The Soil May Need Tilling. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19042075. [PMID: 35206261 PMCID: PMC8871639 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/27/2021] [Revised: 02/06/2022] [Accepted: 02/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
In recent years, Safe-by-Design (SbD) has been launched as a concept that supports science and engineering such that a broad conception of safety is embraced and structurally embedded. The present study explores the extent to which academics in a distinctively relevant subset of science and engineering disciplines are receptive towards the work and teaching practices SbD would arguably imply. Through 29 interviews with researchers in nanotechnology, biotechnology and chemical engineering differences in perceptions of safety, life-cycle thinking and responsibility for safety were explored. Results indicate that although safety is perceived as a paramount topic in scientific practice, its meaning is rigorously demarcated, marking out safety within the work environment. In effect, this creates a limited perceived role responsibility vis-à-vis safety in the production of knowledge and in teaching, with negligible critical consideration of research's downstream impacts. This is at odds with the adoption of a broader conception of, and responsibility for, safety. The considerations supporting the perceived boundaries demarcating scientific practice are scrutinized. This study suggests that implementing SbD in academia requires systemic changes, the development of new methods, and attention for researchers' and innovators' elementary views on the meaning of and responsibility for safety throughout the innovation chain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sam Jan Cees Krouwel
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; (E.R.D.); (S.H.)
- Correspondence:
| | - Emma Rianne Dierickx
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; (E.R.D.); (S.H.)
- Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| | - Sara Heesterbeek
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands; (E.R.D.); (S.H.)
| | - Pim Klaassen
- Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Braganza O. Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution. ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE 2022; 9:211030. [PMID: 35223051 PMCID: PMC8864350 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.211030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Competitive societal systems by necessity rely on imperfect proxy measures. For instance, profit is used to measure value to consumers, patient volumes to measure hospital performance, or the journal impact factor to measure scientific value. While there are numerous reasons why proxies will deviate from the underlying societal goals, they will nevertheless determine the selection of cultural practices and guide individual decisions. These considerations suggest that the study of proxy-based competition requires the integration of cultural evolution theory and economics or decision theory. Here, we attempt such an integration in two ways. First, we describe an agent-based simulation model, combining methods and insights from these disciplines. The model suggests that an individual intrinsic incentive can constrain a cultural evolutionary pressure, which would otherwise enforce fully proxy-oriented practices. The emergent outcome is distinct from that with either the isolated economic or evolutionary mechanism. It reflects what we term lock-in, where competitive pressure can undermine the ability of agents to pursue the shared social goal. Second, we elaborate the broader context, outlining the system-theoretic foundations as well as some philosophical and practical implications, towards a broader theory. Overall, we suggest such a theory may offer an explanatory and predictive framework for diverse subjects, ranging from scientific replicability to climate inaction, and outlining strategies for diagnosis and mitigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver Braganza
- Institute for Experimental Epileptology and Cognition Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
- Center for Science and Thought, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Hamann J, Kaltenbrunner W. Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvab040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Curricula vitae (CVs) are a crucial device for the evaluation of academic personae and biographies. They play a key role in the competitive assessments that underpin the reproduction of the academic workforce. Drawing on 80 CVs which have been part of candidates’ applications for vacant professorships, our article provides a longitudinal study of the development of CVs used by German scholars in professorial appointment procedures in the disciplines of German studies and history between 1950 and the late 2010s. The analysis reveals the evolution of CVs by tracing their various morphological shifts. We distinguish four formats throughout the period of study: CVs initially had a (1) narrative format that develops into an (2) intermediary segmented form before CVs take on a (3) list form in which biographical information congeals into distinct categories. In the 2010s, the list form develops into a (4) hyper-differentiated list form in which coherent biographical representations are finally dissolved into almost eclectic accumulations of finely grained performance categories. Against the backdrop of this finding, the contribution concludes with three general observations: First, the evolution of CVs reflects changes in the institutional environment, not least the increased competitive pressures in academic careers. Second, the evolution of biographical representations also conveys a transformation of the academic persona throughout which boundaries between personal and professional biographies are established. Third, we propose a reactivity of current list form CVs through which academics are disciplined to live up to the categories that wait to be realized in their CVs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julian Hamann
- Department of Educational Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
| | - Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, PO Box 905, 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
OUP accepted manuscript. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
|
22
|
Figuerola B, Valiente N, Barbosa A, Brasier MJ, Colominas-Ciuró R, Convey P, Liggett D, Fernández-Martínez MA, Gonzalez S, Griffiths HJ, Jawak SD, Merican F, Noll D, Prudencio J, Quaglio F, Pertierra LR. Shifting Perspectives in Polar Research: Global Lessons on the Barriers and Drivers for Securing Academic Careers in Natural Sciences. Front Ecol Evol 2021. [DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2021.777009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
The polar regions provide valuable insights into the functioning of the Earth’s regulating systems. Conducting field research in such harsh and remote environments requires strong international cooperation, extended planning horizons, sizable budgets and long-term investment. Consequently, polar research is particularly vulnerable to societal and economic pressures during periods of austerity. The global financial crisis of 2008, and the ensuing decade of economic slowdown, have already adversely affected polar research, and the current COVID-19 pandemic has added further pressure. In this article we present the outcomes of a community survey that aimed to assess the main barriers and success factors identified by academic researchers at all career stages in response to these global crises. The survey results indicate that the primary barriers faced by polar early and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) act at institutional level, while mitigating factors are developed at individual and group levels. Later career scientists report pressure toward taking early retirement as a means of institutions saving money, reducing both academic leadership and the often unrecognized but vital mentor roles that many play. Gender and social inequalities are also perceived as important barriers. Reorganization of institutional operations and more effective strategies for long-term capacity building and retaining of talent, along with reduction in non-research duties shouldered by EMCRs, would make important contributions toward ensuring continued vitality and innovation in the polar research community.
Collapse
|
23
|
Schuurmans JJ, van Pijkeren N, Bal R, Wallenburg I. Regionalization in elderly care: what makes up a healthcare region? J Health Organ Manag 2021; ahead-of-print. [PMID: 33340070 PMCID: PMC8297598 DOI: 10.1108/jhom-08-2020-0333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the formation and composition of “regions” as places of care, both empirically and conceptually. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on action-oriented research involving experiments aimed at designing, implementing and evaluating promising solutions to the entwined problems of a burgeoning elderly population and an increasing shortage of medical staff. It draws on ethnographic research conducted in 14 administrative areas in the Netherlands, a total of 273 in-depth interviews and over 1,000 h of observations. Findings This research challenges the understanding of a healthcare region as a clearly bounded topological area. It shows that organizations and professionals collaborate in a variety of different networks, some conterminous with the administrative region established by policymakers and others not. These networks are by nature unstable and dynamic. Attempts to form new regional collaborations with neighbouring organizations are complicated by existing healthcare governance and accountability structures that position organizations as competitors. Practical implications Policymakers should take the pre-established partnerships of healthcare organizations into account before delineating the area in which regionalization is meant to take place. A better alignment of governance and accountability structures is also needed for regionalization to occur in healthcare. Originality/value This paper combines insights from valuation studies with sociogeographical literature and provides a framework for understanding the assembling and disassembling of “regions”.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jitse Jonne Schuurmans
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Nienke van Pijkeren
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roland Bal
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Iris Wallenburg
- Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Falkenberg RI. Re-invent Yourself! How Demands for Innovativeness Reshape Epistemic Practices. MINERVA 2021; 59:423-444. [PMID: 34121774 PMCID: PMC8184871 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-021-09447-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
In the current research landscape, there are increasing demands for research to be innovative and cutting-edge. At the same time, concerns are voiced that as a consequence of neoliberal regimes of research governance, innovative research becomes impeded. In this paper, I suggest that to gain a better understanding of these dynamics, it is indispensable to scrutinise current demands for innovativeness as a distinct way of ascribing worth to research. Drawing on interviews and focus groups produced in a close collaboration with three research groups from the crop and soil sciences, I develop the notion of a project-innovation regime of valuation that can be traced in the sphere of research. In this evaluative framework, it is considered valuable to constantly re-invent oneself and take 'first steps' instead of 'just' following up on previous findings. Subsequently, I describe how these demands for innovativeness relate to and often clash with other regimes of valuation that matter for researchers' practices. I show that valuations of innovativeness are in many ways bound to those of productivity and competitiveness, but that these two regimes are nevertheless sometimes in tension with each other, creating a complicated double bind for researchers. Moreover, I highlight that also the project-innovation regime as such is not always in line with what researchers considered as a valuable progress of knowledge, especially because it entails a de-valuation of certain kinds of long-term epistemic agendas. I show that prevailing pushes for innovativeness seem to be based on a rather short-sighted temporal imaginary of scientific progress that is hardly grounded in the complex realities of research practices, and that they can reshape epistemic practices in potentially problematic ways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth I. Falkenberg
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Kislov R, Harvey G, Jones L. Boundary organising in healthcare: theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future prospects. J Health Organ Manag 2021. [DOI: 10.1108/jhom-04-2021-475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to introduce a special issue on boundary organising in healthcare bringing together a selection of six leading papers accepted for presentation at the 12th Organisational Behaviour in Health Care (OBHC 2020) Conference. Design/methodology/approachIn this introductory paper, the guest editors position the special issue papers in relation to the theoretical literature on boundaries and boundary organising and highlight how these contributions advance our understanding of boundary phenomena in healthcare.FindingsThree strands of thinking – practice-based, systems theory and place-based approaches – are briefly described, followed by an analytical summary of the six papers included in the special issue. The papers illustrate how the dynamic processes of boundary organising, stemming from the dual nature of boundaries and boundary objects, can be constrained and enabled by the complexity of broader multi-layered boundary landscapes, in which local clinical and managerial practices are embedded.Originality/valueThe authors set the scene for the papers included in the special issue, summarise their contributions and implications, and suggest directions for future research.Research implications/limitationsThe authors call for interdisciplinary and multi-theoretical investigations of boundary phenomena in health organisation and management, with a particular attention to (1) the interplay between multiple types of boundaries, actors and objects operating in complex multi-layered boundary systems; (2) diversity of the backgrounds, experiences and preferences of patients and services users and (3) the role of artificial intelligence and other non-human actors in boundary organising.Practical implicationsDeveloping strategies of reflection, mitigation, justification and relational work is crucial for the success of boundary organising initiatives.
Collapse
|
26
|
Pinel C. Renting Valuable Assets: Knowledge and Value Production in Academic Science. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 2021; 46:275-297. [PMID: 33518849 PMCID: PMC7116635 DOI: 10.1177/0162243920911974] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
This paper explores what it takes for research laboratories to produce valuable knowledge in academic institutions marked by the coexistence of multiple evaluative frameworks. Drawing upon ethnographic fieldwork carried out in two UK-based epigenetics research laboratories, I examine the set of practices through which research groups intertwine knowledge production with the making of scientific, health and wealth value. This includes building and maintaining a portfolio of valuable resources, such as expertise, scientific credibility or data and turning these resources into assets by carefully organising and managing their value. Laboratories then put these assets to productive use within and outside their labs towards the creation or extraction of value. I identify two models for producing value within academic science: a commodity-based model whereby laboratories mobilise their assets to produce results, which can be converted into publications for the accumulation of credibility capital; and a rentier model of accumulation, whereby laboratories own valuable assets, which they rent out to others outside their lab against a revenue. Following recent developments in STS on value production in the bioeconomy, I argue that the concepts of asset and rent are essential analytical tools to get to grips with the origins of value within academic science.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Clémence Pinel
- Centre for Medical Science and Technology Studies, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Cartagena‐Matos B, Lugué K, Fonseca P, Marques TA, Prieto R, Alves F. Trends in cetacean research in the Eastern North Atlantic. Mamm Rev 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/mam.12238] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Bárbara Cartagena‐Matos
- cE3c‐ Centre for Ecology Evolution and Environmental Changes Faculty of Sciences University of Lisbon Portugal
| | - Klervi Lugué
- Oceanic Observatory of Madeira (OOM) Funchal Portugal
| | - Paulo Fonseca
- cE3c‐ Centre for Ecology Evolution and Environmental Changes Faculty of Sciences University of Lisbon Portugal
| | - Tiago A. Marques
- Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling University of St Andrews St Andrews UK
- Departamento de Biologia Animal Centro de Estatística e Aplicações Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa Lisboa Portugal
| | - Rui Prieto
- MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre of Azores Institute of Marine Research (IMAR) University of the AzoresPortugal
| | - Filipe Alves
- Oceanic Observatory of Madeira (OOM) Funchal Portugal
- MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre/ARDITI, Madeira Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Nästesjö J. Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices. MINERVA 2020; 59:237-259. [PMID: 33343041 PMCID: PMC7733738 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-020-09425-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
There is a lack of objective evaluative standards for academic work. While this has been recognized in studies of how gatekeepers pass judgment on the works of others, little is known about how scholars deal with the uncertainty about how their work will be evaluated by gatekeepers. Building upon 35 interviews with early career academics in political science and history, this paper explores how junior scholars use appraisal devices to navigate this kind of uncertainty. Appraisal devices offer trusted and knowledgeable appraisals through which scholars are informed whether their work and they themselves are good enough to succeed in academia. Investigating how early career academics rely upon appraisals from assessors (i.e., 'academic mentors'), the study adds to existing literature on uncertainty and worth in academic life by drawing attention to how scholars' anticipatory practices are informed by trusting the judgment of others. The empirical analysis demonstrates that early career academics are confronted with multiple and conflicting appraisals that they must interpret and differentiate between. However, the institutional conditions for dealing with uncertainty about what counts in future evaluations, as well as which individuals generally come to function as assessors, differ between political science and history. This has an impact on both valuation practices and socialization structures. Focusing on what I call practices of appraisal devices, the paper provides a conceptual understanding of how scholars cope with uncertainties about their future. Furthermore, it expands existing theory by demonstrating how scholars' self-concept and desired identities are key to the reflexive ways appraisal devices are used in the course of action.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonatan Nästesjö
- Department of Educational Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 16, 22100 Lund, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Penders B, Lutz P, Shaw DM, Townend DMR. Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research. LIFE SCIENCES, SOCIETY AND POLICY 2020; 16:4. [PMID: 32567015 PMCID: PMC7309978 DOI: 10.1186/s40504-020-00099-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2019] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands.
| | - Peter Lutz
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
- School of Information Technology, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
| | - David M Shaw
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - David M R Townend
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
de Frutos-Belizón J, Martín-Alcázar F, Sánchez-Gardey G. The research–practice gap in the field of HRM: a qualitative study from the academic side of the gap. REVIEW OF MANAGERIAL SCIENCE 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s11846-020-00397-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|
31
|
Sigl L, Felt U, Fochler M. "I am Primarily Paid for Publishing…": The Narrative Framing of Societal Responsibilities in Academic Life Science Research. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2020; 26:1569-1593. [PMID: 32048141 PMCID: PMC7286937 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00191-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/07/2019] [Accepted: 01/30/2020] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Building on group discussions and interviews with life science researchers in Austria, this paper analyses the narratives that researchers use in describing what they feel responsible for, with a particular focus on how they perceive the societal responsibilities of their research. Our analysis shows that the core narratives used by the life scientists participating in this study continue to be informed by the linear model of innovation. This makes it challenging for more complex innovation models [such as responsible research and innovation (RRI)] to gain ground in how researchers make sense of and conduct their research. Furthermore, the paper shows that the life scientists were not easily able to imagine specific practices that would address broader societal concerns and thus found it hard to integrate the latter into their core responsibilities. Linked to this, researchers saw institutional reward structures (e.g. evaluations, contractual commitments) as strongly focused on scientific excellence ("I am primarily paid for publishing…"). Thus, they saw reward structures as competing with-rather than incentivising-broader notions of societal responsibility. This narrative framing of societal responsibilities is indicative of a structural marginalisation of responsibility practices and explains the claim, made by many researchers in our sample, that they cannot afford to spend time on such practices. The paper thus concludes that the core ideas of RRI stand in tension with predominant narrative and institutional infrastructures that researchers draw on to attribute meaning to their research practices. This suggests that scientific institutions (like universities, professional communities or funding institutions) still have a core role to play in providing new and context-specific narratives as well as new forms of valuing responsibility practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Sigl
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010 Austria
| | - Ulrike Felt
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010 Austria
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010 Austria
| | - Maximilian Fochler
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010 Austria
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, Vienna, 1010 Austria
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Penders B, Shaw DM. Civil disobedience in scientific authorship: Resistance and insubordination in science. Account Res 2020; 27:347-371. [DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1756787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - David M. Shaw
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Krücken G. Multiple competitions in higher education: a conceptual approach. INNOVATION-ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT 2019. [DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2019.1684652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Georg Krücken
- International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Laudel G, Bielick J. How do field-specific research practices affect mobility decisions of early career researchers? RESEARCH POLICY 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
35
|
Baccini A, De Nicolao G, Petrovich E. Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0221212. [PMID: 31509555 PMCID: PMC6739054 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2019] [Accepted: 08/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
It is several years since national research evaluation systems around the globe started making use of quantitative indicators to measure the performance of researchers. Nevertheless, the effects on these systems on the behavior of the evaluated researchers are still largely unknown. For investigating this topic, we propose a new inwardness indicator able to gauge the degree of scientific self-referentiality of a country. Inwardness is defined as the proportion of citations coming from the country over the total number of citations gathered by the country. A comparative analysis of the trends for the G10 countries in the years 2000-2016 reveals a net increase of the Italian inwardness. Italy became, both globally and for a large majority of the research fields, the country with the highest inwardness and the lowest rate of international collaborations. The change in the Italian trend occurs in the years following the introduction in 2011 of national regulations in which key passages of professional careers are governed by bibliometric indicators. A most likely explanation of the peculiar Italian trend is a generalized strategic use of citations in the Italian scientific community, both in the form of strategic author self-citations and of citation clubs. We argue that the Italian case offers crucial insights on the constitutive effects of evaluation systems. As such, it could become a paradigmatic case in the debate about the use of indicators in science-policy contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Baccini
- Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| | - Giuseppe De Nicolao
- Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | - Eugenio Petrovich
- Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Siena, Siena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
De Frutos-Belizón J, Martín-Alcázar F, Sánchez-Gardey G. Reviewing the “Valley of Death” between management research and management practice. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH REVIEW 2019. [DOI: 10.1108/mrr-02-2018-0096] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions.
Findings
The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap.
Originality/value
In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.
Collapse
|
37
|
Meirmans S, Butlin RK, Charmantier A, Engelstädter J, Groot AT, King KC, Kokko H, Reid JM, Neiman M. Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective. J Evol Biol 2019; 32:754-768. [PMID: 31215105 PMCID: PMC6771946 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13497] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2019] [Revised: 05/19/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Roger K Butlin
- Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.,Department of Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Strömstad, Sweden
| | - Anne Charmantier
- CEFE UMR 5175, CNRS, Université Paul-Valery Montpellier, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier Cedex 05, France
| | - Jan Engelstädter
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Astrid T Groot
- Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kayla C King
- Department of Zoology, Christ Church College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Hanna Kokko
- Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Jane M Reid
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Maurine Neiman
- Department of Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.,Department of Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Vayreda A, Conesa E, Revelles‐Benavente B, González Ramos AM. Subjectivation processes and gender in a neoliberal model of science in three Spanish research centres. GENDER WORK AND ORGANIZATION 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Agnès Vayreda
- Department of Arts and HumanitiesUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya
| | - Ester Conesa
- IN3 — Internet Interdisciplinary InstituteUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Bayer F, Gorraiz J, Gumpenberger C, Itúrbide A, Iribarren-Maestro I, Reding S. Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities. Front Res Metr Anal 2019; 4:1. [PMID: 33870033 PMCID: PMC8028382 DOI: 10.3389/frma.2019.00001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2018] [Accepted: 03/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Bayer
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Juan Gorraiz
- Department for Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies, University Library, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christian Gumpenberger
- Department for Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies, University Library, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Arantxa Itúrbide
- University Library, Campus Universitario, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Isabel Iribarren-Maestro
- Bibliometrics Unit, University Library, Campus Universitario, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Steve Reding
- Department for Bibliometrics and Publication Strategies, University Library, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Conesa Carpintero E, González Ramos AM. Accelerated Researchers: Psychosocial Risks in Gendered Institutions in Academia. Front Psychol 2018; 9:1077. [PMID: 30072928 PMCID: PMC6062159 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2018] [Accepted: 06/07/2018] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent decades, scientific institutions have undergone significant changes due to new managerialism and the application of excellence in research. This research model has given rise to tensions related to increasing pressures and working demands in a competitive international environment that accelerate the pace of academic life. In addition, precarious working conditions and job insecurity have affected academics' lives and careers. Academic literature has already addressed these organizational changes and their impact on academics, however, few studies have focused on psychosocial risks related to time constraints, meritocratic pressures and career insecurity from a gender perspective. This analysis is relevant given the gendered distribution of responsibilities and the evidence of gender biases in academia that hinder the advancement of gender equality in scientific institutions, as the persistent lack of women at the top of research careers show. In this paper, we explore the psychosocial effects of the new organizational model of science characterized by accelerated time regimes and precarious working conditions from a gender perspective. We draw attention to gender-based discriminatory practices that may yield an accumulative effect on the well-being of women academics. We analyze 36 interviews from women and men researchers from five areas of knowledge in Spanish universities and research centers, following a 'gendered institutions' approach. The results highlight psychosocial risks for both men and women academics as a result of accelerated work organizations, intensified by uncertainty and hyper-competition due to lack of positions. The hegemonic male work model characterized by total availability confirms academia as a gendered institution, especially damaging women's well-being and careers, as well as those of men committed to care responsibilities - challenging motherhood explanations - which may discourage them from the pursuit of gender equality. Our findings highlight discriminatory practices toward women academics which create psychological harm and feelings of being unwelcome, putting their career progression at risk. Lastly, we suggest a different model of work organization following the implementation of a culture based on an 'ethics of care' feminist approach.
Collapse
|
41
|
Meloni M, Müller R. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance and social responsibility: perspectives from the social sciences. ENVIRONMENTAL EPIGENETICS 2018; 4:dvy019. [PMID: 30090643 PMCID: PMC6070063 DOI: 10.1093/eep/dvy019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2018] [Revised: 03/29/2018] [Accepted: 05/10/2018] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Research in environmental epigenetics explores how environmental exposures and life experiences such as food, toxins, stress or trauma can shape trajectories of human health and well-being in complex ways. This perspective resonates with social science expertise on the significant health impacts of unequal living conditions and the profound influence of social life on bodies in general. Environmental epigenetics could thus provide an important opportunity for moving beyond long-standing debates about nature versus nurture between the disciplines and think instead in 'biosocial' terms across the disciplines. Yet, beyond enthusiasm for such novel interdisciplinary opportunities, it is crucial to also reflect on the scientific, social and political challenges that a biosocial model of body, health and illness might entail. In this paper, we contribute historical and social science perspectives on the political opportunities and challenges afforded by a biosocial conception of the body. We will specifically focus on what it means if biosocial plasticity is not only perceived to characterize the life of individuals but also as possibly giving rise to semi-stable traits that can be passed on to future generations. That is, we will consider the historical, social and political valences of the scientific proposition of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. The key question that animates this article is if and how the notion of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance creates new forms of responsibilities both in science and in society. We propose that, ultimately, interdisciplinary conversation and collaboration is essential for responsible approaches to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in science and society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurizio Meloni
- Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Ruth Müller
- Munich Center for Technology in Society (MCTS), Technical University of Munich, Augustenstraße 46, Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Sigl L, Leišytė L. Imaginaries of Invention Management: Comparing Path Dependencies in East and West Germany. MINERVA 2018; 56:357-380. [PMID: 30147147 PMCID: PMC6096520 DOI: 10.1007/s11024-018-9347-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
The ways in which societies and institutions institutionalize and practice invention management reflects not only how new ideas are valued, but also imaginaries about the role of science and technology for societal development. Often taking the US Bayh-Dole-Act as a model, many European states have recently implemented changes in how inventions at academic institutions are to be handled to optimize their societal impact. We analyze how these changes have been taken up-and made sense of-in regions with different pre-existing infrastructures, practices and semantics of invention management. For doing so, we build on a comparative analysis of continuities and changes in infrastructures, practices and semantics of invention management in North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW, a former Western state) and Saxony (a former GDR state) to reflect on how academic institutions have been handling inventions along transforming socio-political contexts. Building on document analysis and qualitative interviews with research managers, we discuss ongoing differences in practices of invention management and the semantic framing of the societal value of inventions in NRW and Saxony, and discuss how this can be understood before the background of their ideological, political and economic separation until reunification in 1990. Joining the conceptual perspectives of path dependencies and sociotechnical imaginaries, we argue that two critical incidents in the history of these states (the reunification in 1990 and a legal change in 2002) allowed for wide-ranging institutional alignments, but also allowed path dependencies in practices and semantics of invention management to prevail.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Sigl
- Center for Higher Education (zhb), Faculty of Business and Economics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 78, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
- Research Platform Responsible Research and Innovation in Academic Practice, University of Vienna, Universitätsstrasse 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria
| | - Liudvika Leišytė
- Center for Higher Education (zhb), Faculty of Business and Economics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 78, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Penders B. All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science. Account Res 2017; 24:433-450. [PMID: 29035082 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1386565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship. These different ways of working produce different collaborative approaches, different credit distribution strategies amongst collaborators, and different value placed upon (the pursuit of) authorship. These different valuation processes are neither explicit nor recognizable to those reading (and judging) author lists. As a consequence, in the politics of authorship, the names standing atop a scientific publication in nutrition science represent different types of value to both the individuals and employing organizations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- a Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. ASLIB J INFORM MANAG 2017. [DOI: 10.1108/ajim-01-2017-0019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine researchers’ motivations to publish by comparing different career stages (PhD students; temporarily employed postdocs/new professors; scholars with permanent employment) with regard to epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motives.
Design/methodology/approach
This qualitative analysis is mainly based on semi-structured narrative interviews with 91 researchers in the humanities, social, and natural sciences, based at six renowned (anonymous) universities in Germany, the UK, and the USA. These narratives contain answers to the direct question “why do you publish?” as well as remarks on motivations to publish in relation to other questions and themes. The interdisciplinary interpretation is based on both sociological science studies and philosophy of science in practice.
Findings
At each career stage, epistemic, pragmatic, and personal motivations to publish are weighed differently. Confirming earlier studies, the authors find that PhD students and postdoctoral researchers in temporary positions mainly feel pressured to publish for career-related reasons. However, across status groups, researchers also want to publish in order to support collective knowledge generation.
Research limitations/implications
The sample of interviewees may be biased toward those interested in reflecting on their day-to-day work.
Social implications
Continuous and collective reflection is imperative for preventing uncritical internalization of pragmatic reasons to publish. Creating occasions for reflection is a task not only of researchers themselves, but also of administrators, funders, and other stakeholders.
Originality/value
Most studies have illuminated how researchers publish while adapting to or growing into the contemporary publish-or-perish culture. This paper addresses the rarely asked question why researchers publish at all.
Collapse
|
45
|
Hobson’s choice: the effects of research evaluation on academics’ writing practices in England. ASLIB J INFORM MANAG 2017. [DOI: 10.1108/ajim-12-2016-0216] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of research evaluation policies and their interpretation on academics’ writing practices in three different higher education institutions and across three different disciplines. Specifically, the paper discusses how England’s national research excellence framework (REF) and institutional responses to it shape the decisions academics make about their writing.
Design/methodology/approach
In total, 49 academics at three English universities were interviewed. The academics were from one Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics discipline (mathematics), one humanities discipline (history) and one applied discipline (marketing). Repeated semi-structured interviews focussed on different aspects of academics’ writing practices. Heads of departments and administrative staff were also interviewed. Data were coded using the qualitative data analysis software, ATLAS.ti.
Findings
Academics’ ability to succeed in their career was closely tied to their ability to meet quantitative and qualitative targets driven by research evaluation systems, but these were predicated on an unrealistic understanding of knowledge creation. Research evaluation systems limited the epistemic choices available to academics, partly because they pushed academics’ writing towards genres and publication venues that conflicted with disciplinary traditions and partly because they were evenly distributed across institutions and age groups.
Originality/value
This work fills a gap in the literature by offering empirical and qualitative findings on the effects of research evaluation systems in context. It is also one of the only papers to focus on the ways in which individuals’ academic writing practices in particular are shaped by such systems.
Collapse
|
46
|
Müller R, de Rijcke S. Thinking with indicators. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2017. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvx023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth Müller
- Munich Center for Technology in Society (MCTS) & School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Augustenstraße 46, München, Germany
| | - Sarah de Rijcke
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 62A, Leiden, AL, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|