“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

Abstract

The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of "excellence" do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate "excellence" as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hyper-competition that arises from the performance of "excellence" is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that "excellence" is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

“…These institutes have now evolved into internationally competitive businesses that strive for impact through journal publication. Often this is now mediated by commercial publishers through attempts to align their products with the academic ideal of research excellence ( Moore et al , 2017). Such a consequence is plausibly related to, or even a consequence of, broader shifts towards a more competitive neoliberal academic culture ( Raaper, 2016).…”

“…The two are often regarded to be coupled by necessity, largely ignoring the complex and interwoven histories of peer review and publishing. This has consequences, as the individual identity of a scholar is strongly tied to specific forms of publication that are evaluated in particular ways ( Moore et al , 2017). A scholar’s first research article, doctoral thesis, or first book are significant life events.…”

“…Such a discrepancy between a dynamic history and remembered consistency could be a consequence of peer review processes being central to both scholarly identity as a whole and to the identity and boundaries of specific communities ( Moore et al , 2017). Indeed, this story linking identity to peer review is taught to junior researchers as a community norm, often without the much-needed historical context.…”

“…In this form, peer review is becoming increasingly central as a principle of mutual control in the development of scholarly communities that are adapting to digital, information-rich, publishing-driven research ecosystems. Consequently, peer review is a vital component at the core of research communication processes, with repercussions for the very structure of academia, which largely operates through a peer reviewed publication-based reward and incentive system ( Moore et al , 2017). Different forms of peer review beyond that for manuscripts are also clearly important and used in other contexts such as academic appointments, measurement time, research ethics or research grants (see, e.g., Fitzpatrick, 2011b, p. 16), but a holistic discussion of all forms of peer review is beyond the scope of the present article.…”

“…With the advent of the internet, the physical constraints on distribution are no longer present, and, at least in theory, we are now able to disseminate research content rapidly and at relatively negligible cost ( Moore et al , 2017). This has led to the innovation and increasing popularity of digital-only publication venues that vet submissions based exclusively on the soundness of the research, often termed “mega-journals” (e.g., PLOS ONE , PeerJ , the Frontiers series).…”