IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/g5jrx.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Qualität von Forschungsleistungen

Author

Listed:
  • Hamann, Julian

Abstract

The contribution proceeds from the observation that current discussions on research and funding policy increasingly conflate the concept 'research quality' with the concept of 'research performance'. After distinguishing the notions of 'quality' and 'performance', the first step of the contribution is devoted to central dimensions of 'research quality': plausibility, originality, scientific and social relevance. Broadly speaking, these four dimensions have authority across disciplinary cultures. The first step thus concludes with a discussion of notions of research quality that are rather discipline specific. In a second step, the contribution sheds light on central indicators of 'research performance': third-party funding, publications and citations. The contribution concludes with a discussion that relates the concepts of 'quality' and 'performance' by asking to what extent 'research performance' is actually indicative of 'research quality'.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamann, Julian, 2023. "Qualität von Forschungsleistungen," SocArXiv g5jrx, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:g5jrx
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/g5jrx
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/647848f73c3a3805c6a04a40/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/g5jrx?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. Thomas Franssen & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(10), pages 1124-1137, October.
    2. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 291-301, February.
    3. Grit Laudel, 2005. "Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 27-34, April.
    4. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    5. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    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. Chih-Hung Yuan & Yenchun Jim Wu & Kune-muh Tsai, 2019. "Supply Chain Innovation in Scientific Research Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Migheli, Matteo & Zotti, Roberto, 2020. "The strange case of the Matthew effect and beauty contests: Research evaluation and specialisation in Italian universities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Gianiodis, Peter T. & Meek, William R. & Chen, Wendy, 2019. "Political climate and academic entrepreneurship: The case of strange bedfellows?," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 12(C).
    6. Ruslan Rakhmatullin & Louis Brennan, 2014. "Motivation Behind Researchers’ Participation in Formal Networking Research Projects Funded by the European Union," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 305-329, June.
    7. Wenjing Wang & Yiwei Liu, 2022. "Industrial funding and university technology transfer: the moderating role of intellectual property rights enforcement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1549-1572, October.
    8. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    9. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    10. Munari, Federico & Sobrero, Maurizio & Toschi, Laura, 2018. "The university as a venture capitalist? Gap funding instruments for technology transfer," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 70-84.
    11. Leona Yi-Fan Su & Michael A. Cacciatore & Dominique Brossard & Elizabeth A. Corley & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2016. "Attitudinal gaps: How experts and lay audiences form policy attitudes toward controversial science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 196-206.
    12. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.
    13. Buckle, Robert A. & Creedy, John & Ball, Ashley, 2020. "A Schumpeterian Gale: Using Longitudinal Data to Evaluate Responses to Performance-Based Research Funding Systems," Working Paper Series 9447, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.
    14. Alberto Baccini & Lucio Barabesi & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2020. "On the agreement between bibliometrics and peer review: Evidence from the Italian research assessment exercises," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, November.
    15. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    16. Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C.E. Engels, 2013. "A label for peer-reviewed books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 428-430, February.
    17. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    18. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    19. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "Tension in Interpretations of the Social Impact of the Social Sciences: Walking a Tightrope Between Divergent Conceptualizations of Research Utilization," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    20. Mario Coccia & Greta Falavigna & Alessandro Manello, 2015. "The impact of hybrid public and market-oriented financing mechanisms on the scientific portfolio and performances of public research labs: a scientometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 151-168, January.

    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:osf:socarx:g5jrx. 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.