The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy

Stop blaming external factors: A historical-sociological argument

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Stop blaming external factors : A historical-sociological argument. / Schneider, Jesper Wiborg; Horbach, Serge Pascal Johannes M; Aagaard, Kaare.

In: Social Science Information, Vol. 60, No. 3, 09.2021, p. 329-337.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Schneider, Jesper Wiborg ; Horbach, Serge Pascal Johannes M ; Aagaard, Kaare. / Stop blaming external factors : A historical-sociological argument. In: Social Science Information. 2021 ; Vol. 60, No. 3. pp. 329-337.

Bibtex

@article{fb7084ead6514dc885064cbfa55c0525,
title = "Stop blaming external factors: A historical-sociological argument",
abstract = "With this commentary we respond to Olof Hallonsten{\textquoteright}s recent plea to stop evaluating science. In particular, we challenge two central premises of Hallonsten{\textquoteright}s argument, regarding both the scope of his argument and the claim that {\textquoteleft}exogenous{\textquoteright} metric evaluation of science on its own explains failures of the current scientific enterprise to produce certified knowledge. Even though we acknowledge that {\textquoteleft}external{\textquoteright} 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{\textquoteright} 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.",
keywords = "external evaluation, peer review, quality assurance, research practices, reward system, scientific community",
author = "Schneider, {Jesper Wiborg} and Horbach, {Serge Pascal Johannes M} and Kaare Aagaard",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1177/05390184211018123",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "329--337",
journal = "Social Science Information",
issn = "0539-0184",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

RIS

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

VL - 60

SP - 329

EP - 337

JO - Social Science Information

JF - Social Science Information

SN - 0539-0184

IS - 3

ER -