National research evaluation systems and the social sciences

Ochsner, Michael

doi:10.4337/9781800372559.00036

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The starting point for the book was when Paul Benneworth and Michael Ochsner brought together two projects carried out in their ENRESSH Work Groups. Michael's Work Group on Conceptual Frameworks for Research Evaluation was working on the international comparison of evaluation systems (see Ochsner et al, 2018;Ochsner & Peruginelli, 2022), while Paul's Work Group on Societal Impact and Relevance examined impact case studies across Europe (Muhonen et al, 2020). It seemed logical to bring the two strands of work together in order to focus on the importance that is given to societal impact within national evaluation systems.…”

Section: Background Of the Bookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accountability in academic life: introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation

Ochsner,

Bulaitis

2023

Accountability in Academic Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accountability in Academic Life: European Perspectives on Societal ImpactEvaluation is an edited collection dedicated to providing contemporary European perspectives on the state of societal impact evaluation, paying special attention to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The book explores the consequences of the trend for evaluating the quality of research on the basis of the impact that it creates in society. Across Europe, the implementation of systematic societal impact evaluation has taken off over the last decade, and we can already see its profound influences on the choices and decisions taken by universities, by faculties and departments, and individual researchers. We argue that it is in SSH disciplines that the effects of societal impact evaluation are most visible. Therefore, this book seeks to document and articulate how the evaluation of the social impact of research affects the ways that SSH researchers steer and regulate themselves and, ultimately, the nature of SSH research itself. Through this analysis, it also sets out to think more deeply about the research-society nexus and its relation to research evaluation.The modern phenomenon of systematic and large-scale research evaluation as a centralised steering tool dates to the 1980s. 1 Since this time, research has been subject to an increasingly rigid set of evaluation systems, creating a culture of "competitive accountability" (Watermeyer, 2019) in which researchers are increasingly sensitized to reacting to the signals research is given. There is an urgency to understanding the criterion of societal impact since research evaluation is so fundamental to determining which research and which researchers receive funding, which researchers gain public platforms, which research findings enter our canonical understandings, and which researchers gain the kudos and prestige to become influential in their fields and beyond. As scholars were just getting used to the idea that their research was 1 Certainly, research was evaluated before this but largely through peer review. For historical changes see Gagnier (2013).

show abstract

Section: Background Of the Bookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accountability in academic life: introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation

Ochsner,

Bulaitis

2023

Accountability in Academic Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Untangling “Chinese characteristics”: an examination of “the China Discipline Evaluation with Chinese characteristics” and what it implies

Zhou

2023

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The terminology of “Chinese characteristics” (zhongguo tese) is ubiquitous in China’s political language, but its precise definition remains elusive. This study focuses specifically on the mobilising of the idea of Chinese characteristics of China’s science evaluation programme: the China Discipline Evaluation (CDE). Implemented as an instrument of the higher education reform since 1978, it still plays a vital role in China today. This paper is structured into three parts. It begins by laying out the broad landscape of the science evaluation systems across several countries including China, to distil the distinctiveness of the CDE. Then, it moves to focus on the CDE and locates it in its historical and social-political context. Finally, it investigates the origin and use of Chinese characteristics, suggesting that this terminology functions as a rhetoric modality which describes, labels, and legitimates seemingly self-contradictory phenomena exclusive to China. It also emphasises the idea of Chinese exceptionalism that is touted as irreducible to other cultural forms. Based on these considerations, it proposes three dimensions of the Chinese characteristics of the CDE: (i) the paradoxical status of the evaluation agency, (ii) the co-existence of contradictory values embedded in the objectives and criteria of the evaluation, and (iii) the promotion of the visibility of the idea of China at the international stage. Overall, it shows that while the CDE may appear to be a decentralisation instrument, it is in essence a “hegemonic project” and “hegemonic apparatus” to fulfil the party-state’s ambition in securing domestic stability and pursuing international competitiveness.

show abstract

Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China

Song

Wang

et al. 2023

Qual Quant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National research evaluation systems and the social sciences

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Accountability in academic life: introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation

Accountability in academic life: introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation

Untangling “Chinese characteristics”: an examination of “the China Discipline Evaluation with Chinese characteristics” and what it implies

Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About