TY - JOUR
T1 - Stop blaming external factors
T2 - A historical-sociological argument
AU - Schneider, Jesper Wiborg
AU - Horbach, Serge Pascal Johannes M
AU - Aagaard, Kaare
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - With this commentary we respond to Olof Hallonsten’s recent plea to stop evaluating science. In particular, we challenge two central premises of Hallonsten’s argument, regarding both the scope of his argument and the claim that ‘exogenous’ metric evaluation of science on its own explains failures of the current scientific enterprise to produce certified knowledge. Even though we acknowledge that ‘external’ evaluation mechanisms of science likely amplify problematic practices within science, they do not suffice to explain the crisis situation sketched out by Hallonsten and others. Instead, we make a plea to the academic community to introspect on its own practices. We argue that, to an overwhelmingly degree, these research practices shape the reward and quality assurance system of science. Discussing the formal and informal quality assurance mechanisms of science, we conclude that the apparent crisis in science is cultural and organizational, deeply internally rooted, and inseparable from researchers’ daily practices and personal responsibility. Most importantly, this concerns the central role of the academic community in controlling and evaluating how science is practiced, how merit is defined, and how decisions of promotion and rewards are made.
AB - With this commentary we respond to Olof Hallonsten’s recent plea to stop evaluating science. In particular, we challenge two central premises of Hallonsten’s argument, regarding both the scope of his argument and the claim that ‘exogenous’ metric evaluation of science on its own explains failures of the current scientific enterprise to produce certified knowledge. Even though we acknowledge that ‘external’ evaluation mechanisms of science likely amplify problematic practices within science, they do not suffice to explain the crisis situation sketched out by Hallonsten and others. Instead, we make a plea to the academic community to introspect on its own practices. We argue that, to an overwhelmingly degree, these research practices shape the reward and quality assurance system of science. Discussing the formal and informal quality assurance mechanisms of science, we conclude that the apparent crisis in science is cultural and organizational, deeply internally rooted, and inseparable from researchers’ daily practices and personal responsibility. Most importantly, this concerns the central role of the academic community in controlling and evaluating how science is practiced, how merit is defined, and how decisions of promotion and rewards are made.
KW - external evaluation
KW - peer review
KW - quality assurance
KW - research practices
KW - reward system
KW - scientific community
U2 - 10.1177/05390184211018123
DO - 10.1177/05390184211018123
M3 - Journal article
SN - 0539-0184
VL - 60
SP - 329
EP - 337
JO - Social Science Information
JF - Social Science Information
IS - 3
ER -