Variation in Valuation: How Research Groups Accumulate Credibility in Four Epistemic Cultures
This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found significant differences in the manifestation of the six main resources that are part of the cycle, the mechanisms of conversion between these resources, the overall structure and the average speed of the credibility cycle. The different ways in which the groups use data and produce arguments affect the whole cycle of accumulating credibility. In some cultures, journal publications are the main source of recognition, but in others one can earn significant amounts of recognition for conference contributions or service to the academic community. Moreover, the collaboration practices in the respective fields strongly influence the connection between arguments and publications. In cultures where teams of researchers collaboratively produce arguments, it is more strongly embedded in the process of writing publications. We conclude that the credibility cycle can only be used as an analytical tool to explain the behavior of researchers or research groups when taking differences across epistemic cultures into account.
KeywordsCredibility Epistemic culture Valuation Recognition
The authors thank Leonie van Drooge for many stimulating discussions and Jochen Gläser for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
- Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories, 2nd ed. Maidenhead, Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Collins, Harry. 1992. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Costas, Rodrigo, Zohreh Zahedi, and Paul Wouters. 2015. The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media: Large-scale disciplinary comparison of social media metrics with citations. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67(3): 260–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hessels, Laurens, Wout Scholten, Thomas Franssen, and Sarah De Rijcke. 2016. Excellent geld: De rol van excellentiesubsidies bij vier toponderzoeksgroepen in Nederland. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.Google Scholar
- Joly, Pierre-Benoit, and Vincent Mangematin. 1996. Profile of public laboratories, industrial partnerships and organisation of R & D: The dynamics of industrial relationships in a large research organisation. Research Policy 25(6): 901–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(96)00882-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1999. Epistemic cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, 2nd ed. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Leišytė, Liudvika. 2007. University governance and academic research: Case studies of research units in Dutch and English Universities. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
- Lepori, Benedetto, Michael Wise, Diana Ingenhoff, and Alexander Buhmann. 2016. The dynamics of university units as a multi-level process. Credibility cycles and resource dependencies. Scientometrics 109(3): 2279–2301.Google Scholar
- Stark, David. 2011. The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar