Evaluation systems as shapers of scientific agendas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e080Keywords:
scientific evaluation, scientific quality, research agendas, local problems, publicationsAbstract
This text addresses a set of arguments that show the mechanisms by which the currently dominant scientific evaluation system affects scientific agendas, inclining them towards internationalized themes. In the Latin American context, this process reinforces the persistent trend to produce science that is scarcely used. In the context of incipient signs of change in evaluation systems, some alternatives to modify the evaluation in directions that result in more relevant scientific agendas are proposed. Such dimensions are the inclusion of diverse actors in the scientific system, the change of the dominant concept of scientific excellence, and multi-centered internationalization strategies.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Alvesson, M. y Spicer, A. (2016). (Un)Conditional surrender? Why do professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2015-0221
Arnoux, E. N. de. (2016). Minorización linguística y diversidad: En torno al español y al portugués como lenguas científicas. En E. Rinesi, J. Smola, C. Cuello, y L. Rios (Orgs.), Hombres de una república libre. Universidad, inclusión social e integración cultural en Latinoamérica (pp. 290-306). Universidad de General Sarmiento.
Arocena, R. y Sutz, J. (2010). Weak knowledge demand in the South: Learning divides and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 37(8), 571-582. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12767691861137
Badillo, Á. (2021). El portugués y el español en la ciencia: Apuntes para un conocimiento diverso y accesible. Real Instituto Elcano/Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos.
Baker, S. (8 de octubre de 2021). English Is Dominant Language of Science in Latin America. Times Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/08/english-dominant-language-science-latin-america
Beigel, F. y Gallardo, O. (2021). Productividad, bibliodiversidad y bilingüismo en un corpus completo de producciones científicas. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad —CTS, 16(46), 41-71.
Bianco, M., Gras, N. y Sutz, J. (2016). Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development? Minerva, 54(4), 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9306-9
Cátedra Libre Ciencia, Política y Sociedad (2019). La evaluación en ciencia y tecnología en Argentina. Estado de situación y propuestas. Ciencia, Tecnología y Política, 2(3), 024. https://doi.org/10.24215/26183188e024
CLACSO-FOLEC. (2020). CLACSO-FOLEC. 2020. Para una transformación de la Evaluación de la ciencia en América Latina y el caribe Diagnóstico y propuestas para una iniciativa regional. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales
Dagnino, R. y Oliveira, M. (2019). Sobre os males da gestão: A experiência brasileira. Revista ADUSP, 63, 26-29.
Davyt, A. y Velho, L. (2000). A avaliação da ciência e a revisão por pares: Passado e presente. Como será o futuro? História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 7(1), 93-116. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702000000200005
De Bellis, N. (2014). History and evolution of (biblio)metrics. Em B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Orgs.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 23-44). MIT Press
European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. (2021). Towards a reform of the research assessment system: Scoping report. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/707440
Feld, A. y Kreimer, P. (2019). ¿Cosmopolitismo o subordinación? La participación de científicos latinoamericanos en programas europeos: motivaciones y dinámicas analizadas desde el punto de vista de los líderes europeos. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 26(3), 779-799. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702019000300004
Fressoli, M., Dias, R. y Thomas, H. (2014). Innovation and Inclusive Development in the South: A Critical Perspective. En E. Medina, I. da Costa Marques y C. Holmes (Orgs.), Beyond Imported Magic, (pp. 47-66). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027458.003.0003
Giménez Toledo, E. (2018). La evaluación de las Humanidades y de las Ciencias Sociales en revisión. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 41(3), 208. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2018.3.1552
Goldreich, O. (2015). Content-Oblivious Quality Measures and the Control of Academia. Department of Computer Science Weizmann Institute of Science.
Halffman, W. y Radder, H. (2015). The Academic Manifesto: From an Occupied to a Public University. Minerva, 53(2), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9270-9
Hicks, D. y Wouters, P. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-431.
Invernizzi, N. (2020). Public participation and democratization: Effects on the production and consumption of science and technology. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 3(1), 227-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1835225
Invernizzi, N. y Davyt, A. (2019). Críticas recientes a la evaluación de la investigación: ¿vino nuevo en odres viejos? Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, 25(49), 233-252.
Kreimer, P. y Thomas, H. (2004). Un poco de reflexividad o ¿de dónde venimos? Estudios Sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina. En P. Kreimer y H. Thomas (Orgs.), Producción y uso social de conocimientos. Estudios de sociología de la ciencia y la tecnología en América Latina. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.
Law, J. y Mol, A. (2020). Words to think with: An introduction. The Sociological Review, 68(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120905452
Ortiz, R. (2004). As ciências sociais e o inglês. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 19(54), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-69092004000100001
Requena, M. (2014). La evaluación de la investigación a debate. Revista Española de Sociología, 21, 129-136.
Saenen, B., Hatch, A. y Curry, S.; Proudman, V.; Lakoduk, A. (2021). Case Study Report. Reimagining Academic Career Assessment: Stories of innovation and change. DORA, European University Association, SPARC Europe.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA. (2014). https://sfdora.org/read
Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving Science. The New Atlantis, 49, p. 4-40.
Shu, F., Liu, S. y Larivière, V. (2022). China’s Research Evaluation Reform: What are the Consequences for Global Science? Minerva, 60, 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09468-7
Thomas, H., Becerra, L. y Trentini, F. (2019). La evaluación académica basada en indicadores bibliométricos como sistema socio-técnico. Micro y macropolítica de la jerarquización de productos y actividades científicas y tecnológicas. Redes. Revista de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología, 25(49), 253-337
Vasen, F. (2018). La ‘torre de marfil’ como apuesta segura: Políticas científicas y evaluación académica en México. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 26(96), 1-26.
Vasen, F. y Sierra Pereiro, M. (2022). “The Hardest Task”—Peer Review and the Evaluation of Technological Activities. Minerva, 60, 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09461-0
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R.,, Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J. y Johnson, B. (2015). The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Unpublished. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Noela Invernizzi
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The authors whose texts are published in this Journal surrender their ownership rights in favour of the editor in a non exclusive manner, i.e. the authors can enter into other independent and additional contracts to publish their text, e.g. including it in an institutional repository, thematic or otherwise, publish it in a book, or others, as long as it is overtly stated that the work was first published in this Journal.
The responsibility for each published paper as regards its content relies exclusively on its authors, holding the editors harmless for any legal liabilities.
The texts of the Journal shall be published under the Creative Commons 4.0 BY-NC-SA license. Therefore, the editors are free to:
1) Share, copy and redistribute the material using any means or format.
2) Adapt, remix, transform and create from the material, under the following conditions:
a) Attribution — credit to this work must be given in an appropriate manner, providing a link to the license and indicating if changes have been made.
b) Non-Commercial Use — no use may be made of the published material for commercial purposes.
c) Share Equal — Authors remixing, transforming or creating from the material must distribute their contribution under the same license as the original.