Unable to resist: Researchers’ responses to research assessment in the Czech Republic

Linková, Marcela

doi:10.2478/s13374-014-0207-z

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individual careers, as well as the organization of scientific work within research organizations, as Stöckelová markedly shows in the case of a social science research department in the Czech Republic (Stöckelová, 2014), are increasingly shaped by newly introduced instruments of research assessment. This observation is also in line with the findings of Linková regarding the degree to which scientific institutions and individual researchers in the Czech Republic have been able to resist newly introduced practices of new public management-namely, indicator-driven research assessment (Linkova, 2014). Hence, metrics and digital toolssuch as institutional or disciplinary research portals, citation databases, and preprint archives-take an eminently prominent role in shaping research practices and stand out as key assets in the organization of and within academic careers in the SSH.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Bayer

Gorraiz

Gumpenberger

et al. 2019

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we comparatively analyze, present and discuss the results from a survey on increasing the visibility of research achievements in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) that was carried out at the University of Vienna (Austria) and the University of Navarra (Spain) in 2016 and 2017. Covering four major topics-searching and finding literature, publishing, the visibility of research, and the assessment of research outputs-we ask the following questions: are there disciplinary differences to be identified, and how do they present themselves in the two institutional contexts? Discussing the results, we showcase how disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts are important factors that influence research and publication practices in the SSH. Our results indicate that the practices of searching and finding literature as well as publication practices and behavior are shaped by disciplinary traditions and epistemic cultures. On the contrary, assessment and valuation of research outputs are influenced by institutional and national contexts in which SSH research is organized and carried out.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Bayer

Gorraiz

Gumpenberger

et al. 2019

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, little is known about how such changes affect different status groups within a field or institution. Only a few studies investigate how researchers relate to being evaluated (Linková 2014 ), how they engage in valuing their own work (Rushforth and de Rijcke 2015 ), and how this valuation shapes the way that they work and live as researchers and their decisions about whether to stay in or leave academia.…”

Section: Valuing and Doing Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives

Fochler

Felt

Müller³

2016

Minerva

136

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a crisis of valuation practices in the current academic life sciences, triggered by unsustainable growth and “hyper-competition.” Quantitative metrics in evaluating researchers are seen as replacing deeper considerations of the quality and novelty of work, as well as substantive care for the societal implications of research. Junior researchers are frequently mentioned as those most strongly affected by these dynamics. However, their own perceptions of these issues are much less frequently considered. This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the interplay between how research is valued and how young researchers learn to live, work and produce knowledge within academia. We thus analyze how PhD students and postdocs in the Austrian life sciences ascribe worth to people, objects and practices as they talk about their own present and future lives in research. We draw on literature from the field of valuation studies and its interest in how actors refer to different forms of valuation to account for their actions. We explore how young researchers are socialized into different valuation practices in different stages of their growing into science. Introducing the concept of “regimes of valuation” we show that PhD students relate to a wider evaluative repertoire while postdocs base their decisions on one dominant regime of valuing research. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for the epistemic and social development of the life sciences, and for other scientific fields.

show abstract

“…Our analysis supports emerging critiques of research assessment exercises for inaccurately measuring quality, costs and effects. Those critiques have also explored how assessment exercises might be improved (Geuna and Piolatto, 2016;Linkova, 2014;Mingers and White, 2015;Saunders, Wong and Saunders, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Environment’ Submissions in the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014

Thorpe

Craig

Tourish

et al. 2017

British J of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been much debate about university research assessment exercises. In the UK, a major element of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) has been the research environment. Here we analyse 98 REF2014 ‘environment’ submissions in Business and Management Studies. We explore whether there are distinctive language‐related differences between submissions of high and low ranked universities and conclude that submission writers have a strong incentive to exaggerate strengths and conceal problems. In addition, innate biases such as the ‘halo’ and ‘velcro’ effects may distract the attention of assessors from a submission's strengths and weaknesses, since they are likely to influence their pre‐existing impressions. We propose several changes to improve how environment is evaluated. We also argue that the research environment would be more likely to be enhanced if the number of outputs submitted in future was an average of two and a maximum of four per academic, rather than the maximum of five currently being considered.

show abstract

Unable to resist: Researchers’ responses to research assessment in the Czech Republic

Cited by 34 publications

References 29 publications

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities

Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives

‘Environment’ Submissions in the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About