数字大学研究:使用数字化绩效衡量标准的认识方法及其对研究实践的影响

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Accountability & Management Pub Date : 2023-05-07 DOI:10.1111/faam.12367
Sara Giovanna Mauro, Lino Cinquini, Margit Malmmose, Hanne Nørreklit
{"title":"数字大学研究:使用数字化绩效衡量标准的认识方法及其对研究实践的影响","authors":"Sara Giovanna Mauro,&nbsp;Lino Cinquini,&nbsp;Margit Malmmose,&nbsp;Hanne Nørreklit","doi":"10.1111/faam.12367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper explores the way by which universities create meaning of digitized performance measures on research quality and their effects on university scholars’ actions. Drawing on pragmatic constructivism, we scrutinize the epistemic methods by which the digitized performance measures of research quality are handled and used in the governance of research activities in two disciplinary fields in two university settings (Denmark and Italy) and their implications for constructing scholarly research practices. The analysis elucidates exemplars of two epistemic methods of building meaning of and using digitized performance measures: one reflective and interactive, and one authoritative and mechanical. The latter constrains the researchers’ scholarly reasoning and communication and, hence, infringes upon the scholarly fundamentals of university practices. The paper concludes that if the issues of misconceptions of research quality related to the transitions from analog to digital language are neglected, the digital transformation results in dysfunctional human and social practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":47120,"journal":{"name":"Financial Accountability & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12367","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"University research by the numbers: Epistemic methods of using digitized performance measures and their implications for research practices\",\"authors\":\"Sara Giovanna Mauro,&nbsp;Lino Cinquini,&nbsp;Margit Malmmose,&nbsp;Hanne Nørreklit\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/faam.12367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper explores the way by which universities create meaning of digitized performance measures on research quality and their effects on university scholars’ actions. Drawing on pragmatic constructivism, we scrutinize the epistemic methods by which the digitized performance measures of research quality are handled and used in the governance of research activities in two disciplinary fields in two university settings (Denmark and Italy) and their implications for constructing scholarly research practices. The analysis elucidates exemplars of two epistemic methods of building meaning of and using digitized performance measures: one reflective and interactive, and one authoritative and mechanical. The latter constrains the researchers’ scholarly reasoning and communication and, hence, infringes upon the scholarly fundamentals of university practices. The paper concludes that if the issues of misconceptions of research quality related to the transitions from analog to digital language are neglected, the digital transformation results in dysfunctional human and social practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/faam.12367\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Accountability & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Accountability & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/faam.12367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了大学如何创造研究质量数字化绩效指标的意义及其对大学学者行动的影响。我们借鉴实用建构主义,仔细研究了在两所大学(丹麦和意大利)的两个学科领域的研究活动管理中处理和使用研究质量数字化绩效指标的认识论方法,以及它们对建构学术研究实践的影响。分析阐明了构建和使用数字化绩效指标意义的两种认识论方法范例:一种是反思性和互动性方法,另一种是权威性和机械性方法。后者限制了研究人员的学术推理和交流,从而侵犯了大学实践的学术基础。本文的结论是,如果忽视了与从模拟语言向数字语言过渡相关的研究质量误解问题,那么数字化转型就会导致人类和社会实践功能失调。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
University research by the numbers: Epistemic methods of using digitized performance measures and their implications for research practices

This paper explores the way by which universities create meaning of digitized performance measures on research quality and their effects on university scholars’ actions. Drawing on pragmatic constructivism, we scrutinize the epistemic methods by which the digitized performance measures of research quality are handled and used in the governance of research activities in two disciplinary fields in two university settings (Denmark and Italy) and their implications for constructing scholarly research practices. The analysis elucidates exemplars of two epistemic methods of building meaning of and using digitized performance measures: one reflective and interactive, and one authoritative and mechanical. The latter constrains the researchers’ scholarly reasoning and communication and, hence, infringes upon the scholarly fundamentals of university practices. The paper concludes that if the issues of misconceptions of research quality related to the transitions from analog to digital language are neglected, the digital transformation results in dysfunctional human and social practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Environmental reporting in public sector organizations: A review of literature for the future paths of research Unfolding crowd‐based accountability of a charity fund during the war Tribute for Irvine Lapsley Making sense of climate change in central government annual reports and accounts: A comparative case study between the United Kingdom and Norway
×
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