Like Cream: Valuing the Invaluable

McHardy, Julien

doi:10.17351/ests2017.116

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As Mattering Press emphasizes, the ethics of care "mark vital relations and practices whose value cannot be calculated and thus often goes unacknowledged where logics of calculation are dominant." 106 For Mattering Press, then, care can help offset and engage with the calculative logic and metrics-based regimes that permeate academic publishing infrastructures and increasingly determine how we relate to one another: "The concept of care can help to engage with calculative logics, such as those of costs, without granting them dominance. How do we calculate so that calculations do not dominate our considerations?…”

Section: Experiments In Open Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical Open Access and Experimentation

Adema

2021

Open Access Reader

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is on the other side of the agential cut is not separate from us-agential separability is not individuation. Ethics is therefore not about right response to a radically exterior/ized other, but about responsibility and accountability for the lively relationalities of becoming of which we are a part.-Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway 1In the previous chapter, I shortly outlined how the system of material production that historically developed around the scholarly book-encompassing its production, distribution, and consumption-and that helped establish a contingent configuration of powerful stakeholders has played an essential role in the creation of the book as a stable object and a commodity. This book-object, as a technology with specific material and aesthetic features, has in intra-action with these structures and relations again shaped our modern scholarly

show abstract

Section: Experiments In Open Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical Open Access and Experimentation

Adema

2021

Open Access Reader

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these cases, audit is re-labeled in positive terms as both organizational and individual learning, as development instead of judgment, as care and support instead of competition and opposition. Publication strategies are tweaked, goals are re-formulated, or calculation is used in such a way that it does not dominate but "keeps the edges tidy" (McHardy 2017). A fourth and final strategy could perhaps best be characterized as an attempt at collective progressivism.…”

Section: Reflecting the Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

<b>Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate</b>

Fochler

Rijcke

2017

Engaging STS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of new modes evaluating academic work has substantially changed institutions and cultures of knowledge production. This has been reflected and criticized in the literature in STS and beyond. For STS scholars, these debates (should) however have an even more specific dimension. Many of us are experts on aspects of these changes. But at the same time, we too are part of the processes we are analyzing, and often criticizing. To put it slightly provocatively, often we cannot avoid playing the very same game that we scrutinize. This creates tensions that many of us reflect on, and it certainly has created many implicit and explicit normative stances on how to deal with them. Yet it seems that so far there has been little room in our field to reflect on and exchange this particular kind of experience-based knowledge. There are many different ways to engage with the dynamics of evaluation, measurement and competition in contemporary academia, or to play what we refer to colloquially here as the "indicator game." With this debate, we would like to give room to the expression and discussion of some of these ways. This text is the introduction and prompt to an experimental debate. We discuss the state of the academic discussion on the impact of indicator-based evaluation on academic organization, epistemic work and identities. We use insights from these debates to raise questions for how STS and STSers themselves deal with the indicator game. In conclusion, we summarize our contributors' arguments and propose the concept of "evaluative inquiry" as a new way of representing the quality of STS work in evaluative contexts.

show abstract

“…Contributors (see Bal 2017;Irwin 2017;McHardy 2017) rightly recognize the threat to scholarly diversity and heterogeneity in higher education more broadly resulting from the widespread institutionalization of metrics. Several authors helpfully highlight how existing metrics don't allow us to measure qualities (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We must play. This means junior faculty must publish in high impact factor journals (as discussed by McHardy 2017 andVann 2017), and institutional survival likely means that we must work to raise the stature of the programs of which we are a part in terms of established measures. But, again, likely many authors here, I don't believe we can stop there.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple Resistance is Not an Option: Playing and Transforming the Indicator Game

Kleinman

2017

Engaging STS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I am heartened by the thoughtfulness, passion, and analytical insight in this collection of essays about the "indicator game" (Fochler and de Rijcke 2017). Contributors (see Bal 2017;Irwin 2017;McHardy 2017) rightly recognize the threat to scholarly diversity and heterogeneity in higher education more broadly resulting from the widespread institutionalization of metrics. Several authors helpfully highlight how existing metrics don't allow us to measure qualities (e.g. patient thinking) we believe valuable (see In my brief essay, rather than focus on very specific details of the contributions to this thematic collection, I would like to build on it. What I write comes from my perspective as a scholar of higher education (see, e.g., Kleinman 2015; Kleinman and Osley Thomas 2016, 2014), an academic administrator and, dare I say, a senior member of the STS and higher education community more broadly. The scholarly and educational world in which I came of age (or at least my perception of it) has changed, and I have changed to. When I began my graduate work in 1985, I came with a perception of higher education as a relatively autonomous space for debating new-sometimes farfetched-ideas and as a site for developing the thinking skills of young people and preparing them for lives of engaged citizenship.Things were changing in US higher education when I started my PhD, but arguably the major public research university I attended in the US was still guided by a postwar ethos. Higher education was considered a public good that should be supported by citizen paid taxes. This included the education provided within its walls and the research undertaken. While US higher education was not immune from attack (witness McCarthyism), my reading of the historical record suggests little challenge to its virtues and apparently little felt need by members of the academic community to persistently and publicly argue for higher education's values.

show abstract

Like Cream: Valuing the Invaluable

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Radical Open Access and Experimentation

Radical Open Access and Experimentation

<b>Implicated in the Indicator Game? An Experimental Debate</b>

Simple Resistance is Not an Option: Playing and Transforming the Indicator Game

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About