Academics’ Attitudes Toward Engaging in Public Discussions: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Engagement Conditions

Püttmann, Vitus; Ruhose, Jens; Thomsen, Stephan L.

doi:10.1007/s11162-022-09725-4

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Too heavy a hand in imposing, for example, criteria of openness upon more qualitative domains where transparency is problematic (for example due to sensitivity of data), risks further devaluing such approaches (Leonelli 2018;Penders et al 2019;Ross-Hellauer et al 2022). Equally, attitudes to public engagement vary across disciplines (Püttmann et al 2022), and many researchers, including those in highly-specialist or theoretical fields, judge that either their research is "not sufficiently accessible to the public or that the public cannot add any value" (Hamlyn et al 2015).…”

Section: Open and Responsible Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Klebel²,

Knoth³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivise open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence-base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a deep disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (“value dissonance”), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as “research citizenship” comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments which better foster quality, openness and responsibility.

show abstract

Section: Open and Responsible Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria

Ross-Hellauer¹,

Klebel²,

Knoth³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Academics’ susceptibility to disruptions of their research productivity: empirical insights from the COVID-19 pandemic

Püttmann,

Thomsen

2024

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted research activities, but did not affect all academics equally. Understanding which academics were susceptible to disruptions is essential for gauging and addressing the pandemic’s systemic consequences and can yield insights into influences on research productivity more generally. Based on the survey responses of 1891 university professors in Germany, we estimate multivariate models to investigate the relevance of a comprehensive set of factors that may have shaped the pandemic’s impact. We furthermore use sample splits and an econometric decomposition technique to analyze disciplinary and gender differences. Our findings show that some factors, including additional time demands for care responsibilities and negative spillovers from disruptions of teaching activities, are of general relevance, whereas the relevance of other factors varies between groups of academics. In the natural and engineering sciences, the dependence on access to research facilities seems to have led to a more uniform negative impact of the pandemic. This apparently rendered the work environment an important influence on academics’ susceptibility to disruptions. In the humanities and social sciences, where the pandemic’s impact was more heterogeneous, individual conditions such as seniority played a notable role. Most of these factors identified as relevant were furthermore more influential among female academics, who seem to experience greater challenges with shielding their research activities from disruptions. Overall, our investigation highlights the complexity of mechanisms worth taking into account for policy and management efforts concerned with academics’ research productivity, within and outside of the context of the pandemic.

show abstract

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure

Ross-Hellauer,

Klebel,

Knoth

et al. 2023

Science and Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (‘value dissonance’), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as ‘research citizenship’ comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility.

show abstract

Academics’ Attitudes Toward Engaging in Public Discussions: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Engagement Conditions

Cited by 4 publications

References 33 publications

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: Individual and institutional priorities in review, promotion and tenure criteria

Academics’ susceptibility to disruptions of their research productivity: empirical insights from the COVID-19 pandemic

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About