Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game

M. Power
{"title":"Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game","authors":"M. Power","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"and Keele in the United Kingdom, came equal top in a league table, each with grade point averages of 3.80 (where 4 is a maximum). The Department of Philosophy at Oxford University was ranked tenth with a grade point average (GPA) of 3.40. Ranking systems are widespread, not least in the field of education (see Kehm, this volume, chapter 6). For example, Espeland and Sauder (2007) examine the rankings of US law schools and their effects on the behavior of key organizational participants, such as deans, who are compelled to pay attention to them despite being doubtful of their worth. Furthermore, while small differences in GPA calculations can amplify differences in rank ordering, these crude snapshots of relative performance provide easy and popular comparability for nonspecialist publics. However, there is something particularly distinctive about the ranking of UK philosophy departments described above: it is based on an evaluation of the impact of their research. By impact in this context, one would ordinarily imagine journal citations and other demonstrable measures of quality within the field of academic philosophy. Such bibliometrics have attracted considerable attention from analysts (e.g., Gingras, 2016). Yet this would be wrong. Impact in this UK setting means the social and economic beneficial impact outside academia. In other words, the departments of philosophy at Birmingham, Keele, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom were graded and ranked in terms of the social and beneficial impact of their research. In fact, all subject areas in UK universities were evaluated for this kind of impact as part of a major evaluation of research quality, the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014 hereafter, which is the successor to the Research Assessment Exercises of previous decades). UK universities made 1,911 submissions across all subject areas from 52,061 staff who produced 191,150 research “outputs” 3 Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game","PeriodicalId":186262,"journal":{"name":"Gaming the Metrics","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gaming the Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

and Keele in the United Kingdom, came equal top in a league table, each with grade point averages of 3.80 (where 4 is a maximum). The Department of Philosophy at Oxford University was ranked tenth with a grade point average (GPA) of 3.40. Ranking systems are widespread, not least in the field of education (see Kehm, this volume, chapter 6). For example, Espeland and Sauder (2007) examine the rankings of US law schools and their effects on the behavior of key organizational participants, such as deans, who are compelled to pay attention to them despite being doubtful of their worth. Furthermore, while small differences in GPA calculations can amplify differences in rank ordering, these crude snapshots of relative performance provide easy and popular comparability for nonspecialist publics. However, there is something particularly distinctive about the ranking of UK philosophy departments described above: it is based on an evaluation of the impact of their research. By impact in this context, one would ordinarily imagine journal citations and other demonstrable measures of quality within the field of academic philosophy. Such bibliometrics have attracted considerable attention from analysts (e.g., Gingras, 2016). Yet this would be wrong. Impact in this UK setting means the social and economic beneficial impact outside academia. In other words, the departments of philosophy at Birmingham, Keele, and elsewhere in the United Kingdom were graded and ranked in terms of the social and beneficial impact of their research. In fact, all subject areas in UK universities were evaluated for this kind of impact as part of a major evaluation of research quality, the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014 hereafter, which is the successor to the Research Assessment Exercises of previous decades). UK universities made 1,911 submissions across all subject areas from 52,061 staff who produced 191,150 research “outputs” 3 Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
参与和被参与研究影响游戏
和英国的基尔大学在排行榜上并列第一,平均绩点均为3.80分(最高为4分)。牛津大学哲学系以3.40的平均绩点排名第十。排名系统很普遍,尤其是在教育领域(见Kehm,本卷,第6章)。例如,Espeland和Sauder(2007)研究了美国法学院的排名及其对关键组织参与者(如院长)行为的影响,院长尽管怀疑排名的价值,但仍被迫关注排名。此外,虽然GPA计算的微小差异会放大排名顺序的差异,但这些相对表现的粗略快照为非专业公众提供了简单而受欢迎的可比性。然而,上述英国哲学系的排名有一些特别之处:它是基于对其研究影响的评估。在这种情况下,人们通常会想到期刊引用和学术哲学领域内其他可证明的质量衡量标准。这样的文献计量学已经引起了分析师的相当大的关注(例如,Gingras, 2016)。然而,这是错误的。在英国,影响是指学术界以外的社会和经济有益影响。换句话说,伯明翰、基尔和英国其他地方的哲学系根据其研究的社会影响和有益影响进行了评分和排名。事实上,英国大学的所有学科领域都对这种影响进行了评估,作为研究质量主要评估的一部分,研究卓越框架(以下简称REF2014,这是前几十年研究评估活动的继承者)。英国大学在所有学科领域提交了1,911份意见书,来自52,061名员工,他们产生了191,150项研究“成果”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Transformation of the Scientific Paper: From Knowledge to Accounting Unit Ghost-Managing and Gaming Pharmaceutical Knowledge Beyond and Before Metrics Fake Archives: The Search for Openness in Scholarly Communication Platforms Playing and Being Played by the Research Impact Game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1