量化学术:对学术排名竞赛的海德格尔技术批判分析

J. Koskinen, Kai Kimppa, Janne Lahtiranta, Sami Hyrynsalmi
{"title":"量化学术:对学术排名竞赛的海德格尔技术批判分析","authors":"J. Koskinen, Kai Kimppa, Janne Lahtiranta, Sami Hyrynsalmi","doi":"10.1108/itp-01-2023-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.Design/methodology/approachThis article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.FindingsDespite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.Originality/valueThis paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.","PeriodicalId":504906,"journal":{"name":"Information Technology & People","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantified academics: Heideggerian technology critical analysis of the academic ranking competition\",\"authors\":\"J. Koskinen, Kai Kimppa, Janne Lahtiranta, Sami Hyrynsalmi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/itp-01-2023-0032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.Design/methodology/approachThis article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.FindingsDespite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.Originality/valueThis paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Information Technology & People\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Information Technology & People\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-01-2023-0032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Technology & People","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-01-2023-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的学术界的竞争一直都很激烈,但如今,学术界似乎更像一个产业,而不是一个学术团体,因为学术界是通过量化和经济手段进行评估的。这对学术界产生了负面影响,因此,信息系统领域应特别加以关注,并注意到其核心存在的问题。这种量化学术现象在学术量化网站上清晰可见,在这些网站上,学术界人士通过计算其产出的指标来进行评估。技术的本质似乎通过强调其可量化的方面,扰乱了对研究的评价方式。该研究称,重要的是要寻找其他方法来评估研究人员,而不是试图最大限度地提高研究产量,这已导致大量文章涌入,而很少有人有时间或有兴趣阅读这些文章。 原创性/价值 本文对当前的学术量化现象提出了新的见解,并强调如果要实现未来学者所期望的学术文化,就必须进行关键性的变革。
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
Quantified academics: Heideggerian technology critical analysis of the academic ranking competition
PurposeThe competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.Design/methodology/approachThis article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.FindingsDespite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.Originality/valueThis paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity of digital media exposure, information verification and vaccination intention: an empirical study in China Diversity of digital media exposure, information verification and vaccination intention: an empirical study in China Assessing factors influencing intentions to use cryptocurrency payments in the hospitality sector Artificial intelligence and work transformations: integrating sensemaking and workplace learning perspectives Understanding experiences of adverse digital incorporation of ridesharing drivers in Bangladesh
×
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