Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development?

Minerva

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 399-421

  Bianco, Mariela ^a   Gras, Natalia ^a,b   Sutz, Judith ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b DEPARTAMENTO DE SISTEMAS BIOLÓGICOS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Academic evaluation; Research agendas; Research for development; Science in developing countries; Uruguay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84981272737     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: 15731871     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-016-9306-9     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Alberts, Bruce. 2013. Impact factor distortions. Science 340: 787.
2. Arocena, Rodrigo, and Judith Sutz. 2010. Weak knowledge demand in the South, learning divides and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy 37(8): 571–582.
3. Barré, Remi. 2010. Towards socially robust S&T indicators: indicators are debatable devices, enabling collective learning. Research Evaluation 19(3): 227–231.
4. Benninghoff, Martin, and Dietmar Braun. 2010. Research Funding, Authority Relations, and Scientific Production in Switzerland. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 81–108. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
5. Bensusán, Graciela, Natalia Gras, Daniel Inclán, Carlos E. Rodríguez, Giovanna Valenti, and Gonzalo Varela. 2014. Reflexiones sobre la evaluación a los investigadores: una mirada desde diferentes perspectivas. http://www.foroconsultivo.org.mx/libros_editados/evaluacion_de_la_evaluacion_subgrupos_individuos.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2015.
6. Bernal, John D. 1994. Historia Social de la Ciencia. Barcelona: Península Ed.
7. Bianco, Mariela, Natalia Gras, and Judith Sutz. 2014a. Reflexiones sobre la práctica de la evaluación académica. In Análisis y reflexiones sobre 20 años de políticas de investigación en la Universidad de la República: aciertos, dudas y aprendizajes, eds. Mariela Bianco, and Judith Sutz, 209–235. Montevideo: CSIC-UdelaR, Trilce.
8. Bianco, Mariela, Maria Goñi, and Cecilia Tomassini. 2014b. Señales transmitidas por el sistema de fomento a la investigación: tensiones en la orientación de la producción de conocimiento y las carreras académicas en Uruguay. REDES 20(39): 159–182.
9. Bianco, Mariela, Carlos Bianchi, Andrea Bielli, Claudia Cohanoff, Ana Laura de Giorgi, Natalia Gras, and Judith Sutz (coordinator). 2006. Pensando el Plan Estratégico Nacional en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Document for the First PENCTI Workshop, CSIC-UdelaR. http://csic.edu.uy/renderPage/index/pageId/275#heading_892. Accessed 18 March 2016.
10. Bunders, Joske. 1987. The practical management of scientists’ actions: the influence of patterns of knowledge development in biology on cooperations between university biologists and non-scientists. In The Social Direction of the Public Sciences, eds. Stuart S. Blume, Joske Bunders, Loet Leydesdorff, and Richard Whitley, 39–74. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Co.
11. Bunders, Joske. 1990. Biotechnology for small-scale farmers in developing countries. Analysis and assessment procedures. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
12. Bunders, Joske, and Jacqueline Broerse. 1991. Appropriate biotechnology in small-scale agriculture: How to orient research and development. Wallingford: CAB International.
13. Chavarro, Diego, Puay Tang, and Ismael Rafols. 2014. Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: Evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation 23(3): 195–209.
14. Dahler-Larsen, Peter. 2014. Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review 16(7): 969–986.
15. de Jong, Stefan P.L., Pleun van Arensbergen, Floortje Daemen, Barend van der Meulen, and Peter van den Besselaar. 2011. Evaluation of research in context: an approach and two cases. Research Evaluation 20(1): 61–72.
16. De la Mothe, John, and Gilles Paquet. 1996. Evolutionary Economics and the New International Political Economy. London: Pinter.
17. Dobbins, Michael, and Christoph Knill. 2014. Higher Education Governance and Policy Change in Western Europe. International Challenges to Historical Institutions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. DORA. 2012. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. http://am.ascb.org/dora/. Accessed 20 June 2015.
19. Dicyt-MEC. 2012. Informe a la Sociedad. Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación en Uruguay en los últimos años. Montevideo: Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.
20. Elzinga, Aant. 1988. The consequences of evaluation for academic research. Science Studies 1: 5–14.
21. Evidence Ltd. 2007. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in the UK higher education institutions. http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2007/Bibliometrics.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2015.
22. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2016. Governing Science. European Journal of Sociology 57(01): 117–168.
23. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2007a. The social construction of bibliometric evaluation. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences. The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser. Dordrecht: Springer.
24. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2007b. Evaluation Without Evaluators: The Impact of Funding Formulae on Australian University Research. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences. The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 127–151. Dordrecht: Springer.
25. Hemlin, Sven, and Soren Barlebo Rasmussen. 2006. The Shift in Academic Quality Control. Science, Technology, & Human Values 31(2): 173–198.
26. Hess, David. 2007. Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry. Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
27. Hessen, Boris. 1931. “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia”, paper presented at 2nd International Congress of the History of Science and Technology. London June 20–July 3.
28. Hicks, Diana. 2004. The Four Literatures of Social Science. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, eds. Henk Moed, Wolfgang Glänzel, and Ulrich Schmoch, 473–496. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29. Hicks, Diana. 2006. The Dangers of Partial Bibliometric Evaluation in the Social Sciences. Economia Politica XXIII 2: 145–162.
30. Hicks, Diana. 2013. One size doesn’t fit all: On the co-evolution of national evaluation systems and social science publishing. Confero: Essays on Education Philosophy and Politics. doi:10.3384/confero13v1121207b
31. Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, and Ismael Rafols. 2015. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(April): 429–431.
32. Katz, J. Sylvan. 1999. Bibliometric Indicators and the Social Sciences. ESRC http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~sylvank/pubs/ESRC.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2015.
33. Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. López-Piñeiro, Carla, and Diana Hicks. 2015. Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation 24(1): 78–89.
35. Martin, Ben, and Richard Whitley. 2010. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: A Case of Regulatory Capture? In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 51–79. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
36. McNay, Ian. 2009. Research Quality Assessment: objectives, approaches, responses and consequences. In Academic Research and Researchers, eds. Angela Brew, and Lisa Lucas, 35–53. London: McGraw Hill.
37. Meier, Frank, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. Mission Now Possible: Profile Building and Leadership in German Universities. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 211–237. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
38. Merton, Robert. 1988. The Matthew effect in science. ISIS 79(4): 606–623.
39. Merton, Robert. 1942. The Normative Structure of Science. In The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Morris, Norma. 2010. Authority Relations as Condition for, and Outcome of, Shifts in Governance: The Limited Impact of the UK Research Assessment Exercise on the Biosciences. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 239–264. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
41. PEDECIBA (Programa de Desarrollo de las Ciencias Básicas). 2004. Criterios, herramientas y procedimientos generales para la evaluación de la actividad académica de los investigadores. http://www.pedeciba.edu.uy/docspd/CritEvalInv04.pdf. Accessed 21 Aug 2015.
42. Power, Michael. 1987. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Regeer, Barbara, Anne-Charlotte Hoes, Mariette van Amstel, Francisca Caron-Flinterman Saane, and Joske Bunders. 2009. Six Guiding Principles for Evaluating Mode-2 Strategies for Sustainable Development. American Journal of Evaluation 30: 515–537.
44. Rosenberg, Nathan. 1982. Inside the Black Box. Technology in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sábato, Jorge, and Natalio Botana. 1968. La ciencia y la tecnología en el desarrollo futuro de América Latina. Revista de la Integración 1(3): 15–36.
46. Sahel, Jose Alain. 2011. Quality versus quantity: assessing individual research performance. Science Translational Medicine. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3002249.
47. Schimank, Uwe. 2005. “New Public Management” and the Academic Profession: Reflections on the German Situation. Minerva 43: 361–376.
48. UA-CSIC (Unidad Académica de CSIC). 2003. Grupos de Investigación en la Universidad de la República. Montevideo: CSIC-UdelaR.
49. van Dalen, Hendrik, and Kéne Henkens. 2012. Intended and Unintended Consequences of a Publish-or-Perish Culture: A Worldwide Survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(7): 1282–1293.
50. van der Most, Frank. 2010. Use and non-use of research evaluation: A literature review. Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University, Working Paper. http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201016_vanderMost.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2015.
51. Van Raan, Anthony F.J. 1996. Advanced bibliometric methods as quantitative core of peer review based evaluation and foresight exercises. Scientometrics 36(3): 397–420.
52. Vessuri, Hebe, Jean-Claude Guédon, and Ana María Cetto. 2014. Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development. Current Sociology 62(5): 647–665.
53. Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Whitley, Richard. 2007. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences: The Consequences of Establishing Research Evaluation Systems for Knowledge Production in Different Countries and Scientific Fields. In The Changing Governance of the Sciences. The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, eds. Richard Whitley, and Jochen Gläser, 3–27. Dordrecht: Springer.
55. Whitley, Richard. 2010. Reconfiguring the Public Sciences: The Impact of Governance Changes on Authority and Innovation in Public Science Systems. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 3–47. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
56. Ziman, John. 1994. Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.