IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i3p337-351..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure

Author

Listed:
  • Tony Ross-Hellauer
  • Thomas Klebel
  • Petr Knoth
  • Nancy Pontika

Abstract

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (‘value dissonance’), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as ‘research citizenship’ comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:337-351.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Meredith T Niles & Lesley A Schimanski & Erin C McKiernan & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2020. "Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2012. "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1282-1293, July.
    4. Jelke Bethlehem, 2010. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(2), pages 161-188, August.
    5. Björn Hammarfelt & Gaby Haddow, 2018. "Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(7), pages 924-935, July.
    6. David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Don Haviland & Nathan F. Alleman & Cara Cliburn Allen, 2017. "‘Separate but Not Quite Equal’: Collegiality Experiences of Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 88(4), pages 505-528, July.
    8. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    9. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    10. Alexander Cotte Poveda & Clara Pardo Martinez, 2018. "Knowledge and Perceptions of Open Science among Researchers—A Case Study for Colombia," Serie de Documentos en Economía y Violencia 16971, Centro de Investigaciones en Violencia, Instituciones y Desarrollo Económico (VIDE).
    11. Ted I. K. Youn & Tanya M. Price, 2009. "Learning from the Experience of Others: The Evolution of Faculty Tenure and Promotion Rules in Comprehensive Institutions," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80(2), pages 204-237, March.
    12. Ruth Müller & Sarah de Rijcke, 2017. "Thinking with Indicators. Exploring the Epistemic Impacts of Academic Performance Indicators in the Life Sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 361-361.
    13. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    14. Malsch, Bertrand & Tessier, Sophie, 2015. "Journal ranking effects on junior academics: Identity fragmentation and politicization," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 84-98.
    15. Joeri K Tijdink & Anton C M Vergouwen & Yvo M Smulders, 2013. "Publication Pressure and Burn Out among Dutch Medical Professors: A Nationwide Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    16. Lucas Brunet & Ruth Müller, 2022. "Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 486-497.
    17. Gaby Haddow & Björn Hammarfelt, 2019. "Quality, impact, and quantification: Indicators and metrics use by social scientists," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(1), pages 16-26, January.
    18. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    2. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    3. Hendrik P. Dalen, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1675-1694, February.
    4. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Núria Bautista-Puig, 2024. "Research assessment under debate: disentangling the interest around the DORA declaration on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 537-559, January.
    5. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2020. "How the Publish-or-Perish Principle Divides a Science : The Case of Academic Economists," Other publications TiSEM 6fbb6b92-0e06-4271-b6e7-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter, 2021. "How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists," Other publications TiSEM a6a5a855-bb5a-4d52-a841-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    8. Daniele Fanelli & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, March.
    9. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Schleich, Joachim & Alsheimer, Sven, 2024. "The relationship between willingness to pay and carbon footprint knowledge: Are individuals willing to pay more to offset their carbon footprint if they learn about its size and distance to the 1.5 °C," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    12. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Ming, Yaxin & Deng, Huixin & Wu, Xiaoyue, 2022. "The negative effect of air pollution on people's pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 72-87.
    14. Maccarrone, Giovanni & Marini, Marco A. & Tarola, Ornella, 2023. "Shop Until You Drop: the Unexpected Effects of Anticonsumerism and Environmentalism," FEEM Working Papers 330384, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Karoline Gamma & Robert Mai & Moritz Loock, 2020. "The Double-Edged Sword of Ethical Nudges: Does Inducing Hypocrisy Help or Hinder the Adoption of Pro-environmental Behaviors?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 351-373, January.
    16. Falk, Armin & Boneva, Teodora & Chopra, Felix, 2021. "Fighting Climate Change: the Role of Norms, Preferences, and Moral Values," CEPR Discussion Papers 16343, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    18. Zha, Donglan & Zhang, Chaoqun & Jiang, Pansong & Wang, Fu, 2024. "What makes energy consumption behavior visible? Conceptualization, scale development and validation of customized information feedback," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu & Shrestha, Bibek Raj & Maharjan, Shirish & Udas, Erica & Aryal, Kamal, 2024. "Determinants of adoption of climate resilient agricultural solutions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    20. Phu Nguyen-Van & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet, 2021. "Social incentive factors in interventions promoting sustainable behaviors: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:337-351.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.