Valorizing SSH research: Towards a new approach to evaluate SSH research’ value for society

Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection

“…The arguments that are outlined-such as complaints about the use of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines or scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality quantitatively-are arguments that have already been observed by other studies for different branches of the humanities (Hammarfelt, 2017;Thelwall & Delgado, 2015;. Thus, philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain state that qualitative evaluation is the most appropriate method for the evaluation of their field, a stance that we know is generally expressed for the humanities (Galleron et al, 2017;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018). It is also significant that when asked in the survey about which is the best quality criterion, peer review was the one most highly valued by researchers, with the qualitative criterion based on reading and evaluation being precisely the one that is recognised as specific to the discipline.…”

“…The geographical scope of the studies conducted on the reception of bibliometric indicators in the humanities has been both transnational and national. Cross-national studies (Galleron et al, 2017) include work that focuses specifically on the representations of young researchers as well as the perceptions of humanities researchers (Jamali et al, 2020;. On the other hand, there is information available for specific countries such as Switzerland, Australia or Russia (Hug et al, 2014;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018;Narayan et al, 2018;Grinëv, 2021).…”

“…Studies that focus on analysing the perceptions of researchers in the humanities have highlighted a number of aspects. For example, attention has been drawn to researchers' criticism of the use of methods considered to belong to other disciplines, reservations about the use of quantification of research quality or the lack of consensus on the quality criteria shared between different areas (Bayer et al, 2019;Galleron et al, 2017;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018;Hug et al, 2014). There is also a widespread feeling of frustration on the part of humanities researchers (Giménez-Toledo, 2016;Hammarfelt & Haddow, 2018), while others report that humanities researchers show a certain lack of knowledge about how journals improve their performance on metrics (Narayan et al, 2018).…”

National research evaluation systems and the social sciences

“…the state, university or an agency) are methodological aspects of evaluation. Systematic comparisons of how research is evaluated in different countries and typologies of national evaluation practices, however, appeared much later (Coryn et al, 2007;Galleron et al, 2017;Geuna et al, 1999;Geuna & Martin, 2003;Hicks, 2010;Jonkers & Zacharewicz, 2016;Lepori et al, 2007;Lepori et al, 2018;Ochsner et al, 2018;Von Tunzelmann & Kraemer Mbula, 2003). Such classifications differ regarding which of the three differentiations they consider in their endeavour.…”

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

“…Focusing on disciplines that are commonly clustered as SSH research, it is our aim to showcase disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts as important factors that influence how researchers assess academic achievements within their peer communities. While research assessment in the SSH has attracted much attention in the last few years (e.g., Ochsner et al, 2012 ; Archambault et al, 2013 ; Lauer, 2016 ; Galleron et al, 2017 ), we should be alert to the fact that the SSH have been constructed against and in contrast to the natural and exact sciences. Thus, when speaking of the SSH, we need to keep in mind that on no account can we consider them to be a homogeneously organized entity (van den Akker, 2016 ) 1 and that, when speaking of research practices and preferences in the SSH, we need to be alert that individual standpoints and behaviors are subsumed in collective practices.…”