IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v7y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-00647-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship

Author

Listed:
  • Nicky Agate

    (University of Pennsylvania Libraries)

  • Rebecca Kennison

    (KN Consultants)

  • Stacy Konkiel

    (Altmetric)

  • Christopher P. Long

    (Michigan State University)

  • Jason Rhody

    (Social Science Research Council)

  • Simone Sacchi

    (European University Institute)

  • Penelope Weber

    (Social Science Research Council)

Abstract

The current mechanisms by which scholars and their work are evaluated across higher education are unsustainable and, we argue, increasingly corrosive. Relying on a limited set of proxy measures, current systems of evaluation fail to recognize and reward the many dependencies upon which a healthy scholarly ecosystem relies. Drawing on the work of the HuMetricsHSS Initiative, this essay argues that by aligning values with practices, recognizing the vital processes that enrich the work produced, and grounding our indicators of quality in the degree to which we in the academy live up to the values for which we advocate, a values-enacted approach to research production and evaluation has the capacity to reshape the culture of higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicky Agate & Rebecca Kennison & Stacy Konkiel & Christopher P. Long & Jason Rhody & Simone Sacchi & Penelope Weber, 2020. "The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00647-z
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00647-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-00647-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-00647-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Kaare Aagaard & Carter Bloch & Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 106-117.
    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. Robert J W Tijssen, 2003. "Scoreboards of research excellence," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 91-103, August.
    4. Howard D. White, 2004. "Reward, persuasion, and the Sokal Hoax: A study in citation identities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(1), pages 93-120, May.
    5. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Thorsten Gruber, 2014. "Academic sell-out: how an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia," Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 165-177, December.
    7. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    8. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    9. Björn Hammarfelt & Sarah de Rijcke, 2015. "Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 63-77.
    10. Shiri Noy & Rashawn Ray, 2012. "Graduate Students' Perceptions of Their Advisors: Is There Systematic Disadvantage in Mentorship?," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(6), pages 876-914, November.
    11. David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2010. "The controversial policies of journal ratings: evaluating social sciences and humanities," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 347-360, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Leon Cremonini & Edwin Horlings & Laurens K Hessels, 2018. "Different recipes for the same dish: Comparing policies for scientific excellence across different countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 232-245.
    14. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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. Linda Sīle & Raf Vanderstraeten, 2019. "Measuring changes in publication patterns in a context of performance-based research funding systems: the case of educational research in the University of Gothenburg (2005–2014)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 71-91, January.
    2. Renata Kudaibergenova & Sandugash Uzakbay & Asselya Makanova & Kymbat Ramadinkyzy & Erlan Kistaubayev & Ruslan Dussekeev & Kadyrzhan Smagulov, 2022. "Managing publication change at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 453-479, January.
    3. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    4. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    6. Christian Schneijderberg & Nicolai Götze & Lars Müller, 2022. "A study of 25 years of publication outputs in the German academic profession," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 1-28, January.
    7. Kulczycki, Emanuel & Korzeń, Marcin & Korytkowski, Przemysław, 2017. "Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 282-298.
    8. Brooks, Chris & Schopohl, Lisa & Walker, James T., 2023. "Comparing perceptions of the impact of journal rankings between fields," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Emanuel Kulczycki & Ying Huang & Alesia A. Zuccala & Tim C. E. Engels & Antonio Ferrara & Raf Guns & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Zehra Taşkın & Lin Zhang, 2022. "Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(12), pages 1741-1754, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    12. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Grilli, Leonardo, 2021. "The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    14. Carlo D'Ippoliti, 2021. "“Many‐Citedness”: Citations Measure More Than Just Scientific Quality," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1271-1301, December.
    15. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    16. van den Besselaar, Peter & Heyman, Ulf & Sandström, Ulf, 2017. "Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 905-918.
    17. Konstantin Fursov & Yana Roschina & Oksana Balmush, 2016. "Determinants of Research Productivity: An Individual-level Lens," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 10(2), pages 44-56.
    18. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    19. 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.
    20. Yuret, Tolga, 2017. "Do researchers pay attention to publication subsidies?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 423-434.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-00647-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.