Search

The increasing use of research metrics in the monitoring and evaluation of research has led to the expansion of research information infrastructure, as indicated by the rising number of national databases for research output and research information systems. At the same time, debates on requirements of national databases for research output are typically guided by simplistic assumptions about what an infrastructure is and how it shapes our understanding of different phenomena. We present an alternative framing of databases wherein infrastructure and context are seen as mutually constitutive. Drawing upon qualitative data on 12 national databases in Europe, we investigate the role that databases for research output play in research metrics and consequently in our understanding of research activities. Specifically, we bring to the surface database features that are typically left implicit and yet are crucial for understanding these databases in context. A key outcome of this study is an identification of two database logics--New Public Management and Enlightenment--that underpin database designs and the organization of database work. These logics do not merely guide practical database work (e.g. by determining the features of highest priority), but through the outcomes of that work they both enact and distribute a particular conception of what research is. In this article, we show how the two logics manifest and how they are related to each other. Situating these findings in the landscape of developments in research information infrastructure, we discuss implications for research evaluation and the understanding of research in general.

Introduction: Our study critically engages with techniques of self-quantification in contemporary academia, by demonstrating how social networking services enact research and scholarly communication as a "game". Method: The empirical part of the study involves an analysis of two leading platforms: Impactstory and ResearchGate. Observed qualities of these platforms will be analyzed in detail with concrete examples of gaming features in focus. Subsequently, we relate the development of these digital platforms to a broader "quantified self movement". Special attention will also be paid to how these platforms contribute to a general quantification of the academic (authorial) self. Theory: Theoretically we relate the "gamification" of research to neoliberal ideas about markets and competition. Our analysis then extends to long-standing and fundamental ideas about self-betterment expressed in the philosophy of Peter Sloterdijk. Findings: Our study shows how social networking services, such as ResearchGate and Impactstory, enact researchers as "entrepreneurs of themselves" in a marketplace of ideas, and the quantification of scholarly reputation to a single number plays an important role in this process. Moreover, the technologies that afford these types of quantifiable interactions affect the "unfolding ontology" of algorithmic academic identities. Conclusions: The gamification of quantified academic selves intensifies the competitive nature of scholarship, it commodifies academic outputs and it might lead to goal displacement and cheating. However, self-quantification might also serve as a liberating and empowering activity for the individual researcher as alternative measures of impact and productivity are provided by these platforms.

This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found significant differences in the manifestation of the six main resources that are part of the cycle, the mechanisms of conversion between these resources, the overall structure and the average speed of the credibility cycle. The different ways in which the groups use data and produce arguments affect the whole cycle of accumulating credibility. In some cultures, journal publications are the main source of recognition, but in others one can earn significant amounts of recognition for conference contributions or service to the academic community. Moreover, the collaboration practices in the respective fields strongly influence the connection between arguments and publications. In cultures where teams of researchers collaboratively produce arguments, it is more strongly embedded in the process of writing publications. We conclude that the credibility cycle can only be used as an analytical tool to explain the behavior of researchers or research groups when taking differences across epistemic cultures into account.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the organization of research in high-performing research groups in an age of increasing competition and pressure from outside and within higher-education institutions. To explore how researchers navigate such pressures and demands, the practice and perceptions of four high-performing research groups in Denmark and the Netherlands are examined, and the extent to which these groups can be understood as "communities of practice" or if they are displaying "team"-like characteristics is discussed. Previous studies have shown the benefits of communities of practice for organizational performance, and the present study demonstrates that the successful groups do indeed share many characteristics with such communities. A central argument of the paper is, however, also that incentive structures, inherent in many new policy initiatives that are meant to foster excellence in science, are more directed at "team-like" organization by focusing on, e.g., formally organized work processes, predefined goals, milestones, work packages, and hierarchically organized consortia. The potential implications of this are discussed.

Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards.

Global university rankings have become increasingly important "calculative devices" for assessing the "quality" of higher education and research. Their ability to make characteristics of universities "calculable" is here exemplified by the first proper university ranking ever, produced as early as 1910 by the American psychologist James McKeen Cattell. Our paper links the epistemological rationales behind the construction of this ranking to the sociopolitical context in which Cattell operated: an era in which psychology became institutionalized against the backdrop of the eugenics movement, and in which statistics of science became used to counter a perceived decline in "great men." Over time, however, the "eminent man," shaped foremost by heredity and upbringing, came to be replaced by the excellent university as the emblematic symbol of scientific and intellectual strength. We also show that Cattell's ranking was generative of new forms of the social, traces of which can still be found today in the enactment of "excellence" in global university rankings.

While quantitative performance indicators are widely used by organizations and individuals for evaluative purposes, little is known about their impacts on the epistemic processes of academic knowledge production. In this article we bring together three qualitative research projects undertaken in the Netherlands and Austria to contribute to filling this gap. The projects explored the role of performance metrics in the life sciences, and the interactions between institutional and disciplinary cultures of evaluating research in these fields. Our analytic perspective is focused on understanding how researchers themselves give value to research, and in how far these practices are related to performance metrics. The article zooms in on three key moments in research processes to show how "thinking with indicators" is becoming a central aspect of research activities themselves: (1) the planning and conception of research projects, (2) the social organization of research processes, and (3) determining the endpoints of research processes. Our findings demonstrate how the worth of research activities becomes increasingly assessed and defined by their potential to yield high value in quantitative terms. The analysis makes visible how certain norms and values related to performance metrics are stabilized as they become integrated into routine practices of knowledge production. Other norms and criteria for scientific quality, e.g. epistemic originality, long-term scientific progress, societal relevance, and social responsibility, receive less attention or become redefined through their relations to quantitative indicators. We understand this trend to be in tension with policy goals that seek to encourage innovative, societally relevant, and responsible research.

"The Role of the Social Sciences in the Quantified University" is a response to Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra's book, "The Quantified Scholar," which explores the impact of evaluation and measurement on the social sciences in the UK. The book argues that market economics and standardized research evaluations have led to reduced diversity and increased conformity within social science disciplines. It calls for the cultivation of new forms of vocational solidarity to challenge entrenched inequalities in academia. The response also highlights the need for social scientists to address the implications of metrics-driven research assessment systems and discusses opposing trends in research assessment, including a movement away from overreliance on metrics and an intensification of demand for quantitative information about research. [Extracted from the article]