Hobson’s choice: the effects of research evaluation on academics’ writing practices in England

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Volumn 69, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 503-515

  Mcculloch, Sharon ^a  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Epistemology; Higher education; Knowledge creation; Qualitative research; REF; Research evaluation

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACADEMIC WRITINGS; EPISTEMOLOGY; HIGHER EDUCATION; KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH EVALUATION;

EDUCATION;

EID: 85032338344     PISSN: 20503806     EISSN: 20503814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-12-2016-0216     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aksnes, D.W. and Rip, A. (2009), “Researchers’ perceptions of citations”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 895-905.
2. Barton, D. (2007), Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
3. Barton, D. and Lee, C. (2013), Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
4. Bornmann, L. (2013), “The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 722-729.
5. Buela-Casal, G. and Zych, I. (2012), “What do the scientists think about the impact factor?”, Scientometrics, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 281-292.
6. Burrows, R. (2012), “Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 355-372.
7. Clarke, J. and Newman, J. (1997), The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare, Sage, London.
8. Deem, R., Hillyard, S. and Reed, M. (2007), Knowledge, Higher Education and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
9. De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P., Rushforth, A., Franssen, T.P. and Hammarfelt, B. (2016), “Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – a literature review”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-169, doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvv038.
10. Derrick, G. and Pavone, V. (2013), “Democratising research evaluation: achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 563-575, doi: 10.1093/scipol/sct007.
11. Espeland, W.N. and Sauder, M. (2007), “Rankings and reactivity: how public measures recreate social worlds”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
12. Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A. and Völker, T. (2016), “Transdisciplinary sustainability research in practice: between imaginaries of collective experimentation and entrenched academic value orders”, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 732-761, doi: 10.1177/0162243915626989.
13. Fochler, M., Felt, U. and Müller, R. (2016), “Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives”, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 175-200, doi: 10.1007/s11024-016-9292-y.
14. Garcia, C.M., Eisenberg, M.E., Frerich, E.A., Lechner, K.E. and Lust, K. (2012), “Conducting go-along interviews to understand context and promote health”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 1395-1403.
15. Gill, R. (2009), “Breaking the silence: the hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia”, in Flood, R. and Gill, R. (Eds), Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections, Routledge, London, pp. 228-244.
16. Hamilton, M. (2012), Literacy and the Politics of Representation, Routledge, London.
17. Hammarfelt, B. and De Rijcke, S. (2015), “Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
18. Harley, D., Acord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S. and Judson King, C. (2010), Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines, Center for Research Evaluation (BU), Los Angeles, CA and London, available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g (accessed 9 December 2016).
19. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011), “Assessment framework and guidance on submissions”, available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/pubs/2011/02_11/ (accessed 12 December 2016).
20. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2016), “REF impact”, available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/REFimpact/ (accessed 9 December 2016).
21. Laudel, G. and Gläser, J. (2006), “Tensions between evaluations and communication practices”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 289-295.
22. Lemke, J.L. (2000), “Across the scales of time: artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 273-290.
23. Martin, B.R. and Whitley, R. (2010), “The UK research assessment exercise: a case of regulatory capture?”, in Whitley, R., Gläser, J. and Engwall, L. (Eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 51-80.
24. Mewburn, I. and Thomson, P. (2013), “Why do academics blog? An analysis of audiences, purposes and challenges”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1105-1119.
25. Moed, H.F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer, Dordecht.
26. Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M.P., O’Donnell, D.P. and Pattinson, D. (2016), “‘Excellence R Us’: university research and the fetishisation of excellence”, Figshare, available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3413821.v1 (accessed 7 December 2016).
27. Musselin, C. (2013), “How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1165-1173.
28. Nespor, J. (2007), “Curriculum charts and time in undergraduate education”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 753-766.
29. Nygaard, L.P. (2017), “Publishing and perishing: an academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 519-532, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1058351.
30. Reale, E. and Seeber, M. (2013), “Instruments as empirical evidence for the analysis of higher education policies”, Higher Education, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 135-151.
31. Rebora, G. and Turri, M. (2013), “The UK and Italian research assessment exercises race to face”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1657-1666.
32. REF (2014), “About the REF”, available at: www.ref.ac.uk/about/ (accessed 4 December 2016).
33. Rushforth, A. and De Rijcke, S. (2015), “Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands”, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 117-139, doi: 10.1007/s11024-015-9274-5.
34. Strathern, M. (1997), “‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British university system”, European Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 305-321.
35. Strathern, M. (Ed.) (2000), Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy, Routledge, London.
36. Trede, F., Macklin, R. and Bridges, D. (2012), “Professional identity development: a review of the higher education literature”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 365-384.
37. Tusting, K. (2012), “Learning accountability literacies in educational workplaces: situated learning and processes of commodification”, Language and Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 121-138.
38. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008), Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
39. Watermeyer, R. (2015), “Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression”, European Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 331-347.
40. Wilmott, H.C. (2011), “Journal list fetishism”, Organization, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 429-442.