IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/c2zn5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the 2022 Research Excellence Framework in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth

    (University of Bristol)

  • Watermeyer, Richard
  • Batalla, Margarida Borras

Abstract

In aggressively neo-liberalised higher education systems and in ‘high-performing’ research units – typically academic schools in high-ranking research universities – research assessment has come to dominate the daily organisation and enactment of research and research culture. So much so in fact that academics’ research praxis, their employability, career trajectories and very lexicon are in synthesis with the manufacture and mediation of performance values, often to the detriment of collegiality, critical citizenship and self-efficacy. Research assessment as a technology of governance is thus also a ‘disruptive technology’ epidemic to the (re)making of academic lives. Notwithstanding, studies of the affective aspects of research assessment and its emotional manipulation of academic lives are at best thin. Further, less is known of what we call ‘affective auditing’ from the perspective of academic middle-managers with institutional responsibility for implementing assessment procedures and with direct experience of the disruptiveness of research assessment at meso and micro levels. By way of response, this article reports on findings from interviews with academic middle or quasi managers responsible for overseeing research assessment in research elite universities in the high-performance and highly pressurised research context of the UK. These accounts elucidate the weight of ‘affective auditing’ on academic researchers and academic quasi-managers and the extent to which research assessment shapes the emotional contours of research lives.

Suggested Citation

  • Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth & Watermeyer, Richard & Batalla, Margarida Borras, 2022. "Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the 2022 Research Excellence Framework in the UK," SocArXiv c2zn5, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:c2zn5
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/c2zn5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/62444eae1b0a6e03a9f79933/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/c2zn5?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sirris, Stephen, 2019. "Coherent identities and roles? Hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4).
    2. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    3. Gemma Derrick, 2020. "How COVID-19 lockdowns could lead to a kinder research culture," Nature, Nature, vol. 581(7806), pages 107-108, May.
    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. Richard Watermeyer & Gemma Elizabeth Derrick & Mar Borras Batalla, 2022. "Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the research excellence framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 498-506.
    2. Zheng Yan & Wenqian Robertson & Yaosheng Lou & Tom W. Robertson & Sung Yong Park, 2021. "Finding leading scholars in mobile phone behavior: a mixed-method analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9499-9517, December.
    3. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    4. Milojević, Staša & Radicchi, Filippo & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Citation success index − An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 223-231.
    5. Daniella Troje & Pernilla Gluch, 2020. "Beyond Policies and Social Washing: How Social Procurement Unfolds in Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    7. Xu, Shuqi & Mariani, Manuel Sebastian & Lü, Linyuan & Medo, Matúš, 2020. "Unbiased evaluation of ranking metrics reveals consistent performance in science and technology citation data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    8. Arnott, James C., 2021. "Pens and purse strings: Exploring the opportunities and limits to funding actionable sustainability science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    9. 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.
    10. Rafols, Ismael & Stirling, Andy, 2020. "Designing indicators for opening up evaluation. Insights from research assessment," SocArXiv h2fxp, Center for Open Science.
    11. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    12. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    13. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    14. Kate Williams, 2022. "Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank [The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 513-527.
    15. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    16. Coburn, Josie & Yaqub, Ohid & Chataway, Joanna, 2022. "Targeting research to address societal needs: What can we learn from 30 years of targeting neglected diseases?," SocArXiv 65ws7, Center for Open Science.
    17. Selcuk Besir Demir, 2018. "Pros and cons of the new financial support policy for Turkish researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2053-2068, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Helena Francke & Björn Hammarfelt, 2022. "Competitive exposure and existential recognition: Visibility and legitimacy on academic social networking sites," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 429-437.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:c2zn5. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.