Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Social Orders of Research Evaluation Systems

  • Chapter
Book cover The Changing Governance of the Sciences

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook ((SOSC,volume 26))

Abstract

Research evaluation systems (RES) are governance tools that are intended to change science by improving its quality, and which cause concern about change that will alter its content. The contributions to this volume demonstrate that RES have the potential to intrude deeply into the conditions, social relationships and practices of knowledge production. Some RES influence a crucial condition of knowledge production, namely the access to resources. Some of them also change relations within scientific communities by both opening up and demanding new ways of participation by academics in science policy making, thereby shifting the balance of power between those who evaluate and those who are evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, J. (2002), ‘Research Assessment in the UK’, Science, 296, 805-805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åkerlind, Gerlese S. (2005), ‘Postdoctoral Researchers: Roles, Functions and Career Prospects, and Development’, Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 21-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow , Kenneth J. (1962), ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in National Bureau of Economic Research (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Investment Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 609-625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, Stephen R. and Gideon Kunda (2001), ‘Bringing Work Back In’, Organization Science, 12, 76-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, Nicholas (1998), The Economics of the Welfare State, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bator, Francis M. (1958), ‘The Anatomy of Market Failure’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72, 351-379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, Pat (2003), ‘Defining 'Early Career' in Research’, Higher Education, 45, 257-279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecham, Linda (1998), ‘Medical Academics Criticise Research Assessment Exercise’, British Medical Journal, 316, 481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Yochai (2002), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112, 369-446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berezin, Alexander (1998), ‘The Perils of Centralized Research Funding Systems’, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 11, 5-26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boadaway, Robin W. and David E. Wildasin (1984), Public Sector Economics, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Linda (2002), ‘A list of published papers is no measure of value - The present system rewards quantity, not quality - but hasty changes could be as bad’, Nature, 419, 877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel (1994), ‘Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 19, 395-424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, Daryl E. and Terence Connolly (1982), ‘Research Trails and Science Policies’, in Norbert Elias, Herminio Martins and Richard Whitley (eds.), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: Reidel, 293-311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, Daryl E. and Edward J. Hackett (1990), Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy, Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Burton R. (1983), The Higher Education System : Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, Berkeley: University Of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Jonathan R. and Stephen Cole (1973), Social Stratification in Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, Tyler (ed.) (1988), The Theory of Market Failure: A Critical Examination, Fairfax: George Maseon University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E., Peter Healey, Arie Rip and John Ziman (eds.) (1990), The Research System in Transition, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, Partha and Paul A. David (1994), ‘Toward a New Economics of Science’, Research Policy, 23, 487-521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, Paul A., Dominique Foray and Edward Steinmueller (1999), ‘The Research Network and the New Economics of Science: from Metaphors to Organizational Behaviors’, in Alfonso Gambardella and Franco Malerba (eds.), The Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303-342.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEST [Department of Education, Science and Training] (2006), Research Quality Framework: Assessing the Quality and Impact of Research in Australia - The Recommended RQF, Canberra: DEST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dill, David, Pedro Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed and Alberto Amaral (2004), ‘Conclusion’, in Pedro Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill and Alberto Amaral (eds.), Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 327-352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, Jürgen (2002), ‘Governing the Academic Commons: About Blurring Boundaries, Blistering Organisations, and Growing Demands’, in University of Twente (ed.), The CHEPS Inaugurals 2002, Enschede: University of Twente, pp. 69-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evaluation Associates Ltd (1999), Interdisciplinary Research and the Research Assessment Exercise. A Report for the UK Higher Education Funding Bodies, http://admin.hero.ac.uk/rae/niss/1_99.doc (accessed 31 May 2007).

  • Geiger, Roger L. (2004), ‘Market Coordination of Higher Education: The United States’, in Pedro Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill and Alberto Amaral (eds.), Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 161-183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen (2006), Wissenschaftliche Produktionsgemeinschaften. Die soziale Ordnung der Forschung, Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen (2007), ‘The Social Order of Open Source Software Production’, in Kirk St.Amant and Brian Still (eds.), Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, Jochen, Grit Laudel, Sybille Hinze and Linda Butler (2002), Impact of Evaluation-based Funding on the Production of Scientific Knowledge: What to Worry About, and How to Find out, http://repp.anu.edu.au/expertise-glae-lau-hin-but.pdf.

  • Harley, Sandra and Frederic S. Lee (1997), ‘Research Selectivity, Managerialism, and the Academic Labor Process: The Future of Nonmainstream Economics in U.K. Universities’, Human Relations, 50, 1427-1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F.A. (1945), ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, The American Economic Review, 35, 519-530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, Frederick (1991), ‘Spontaneous (‘Grown’) Order and Organized (‘Made’) Order’, in Grahame Thompson, Jennifer Frances, Rosalind Levačić and Jeremy Mitchell (eds.), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. The Coordination of Social Life, London: SAGE, pp. 293-301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, Mary (2000), Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrobin, David F. (1996), ‘Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Harbinger for Mediocrity in Clinical Research?’, Lancet, 348, 1293-1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HRK [Hochschulrektorenkonferenz] (2007), Die Zukunft der Kleinen Fächer: Potenziale – Herausforderungen – Perspektiven, Bonn: HRK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo, Félix De Moya Anegòn and Emilio Delgado Lòpez-Còzar (2003), ,The Evolution of Research Activity in Spain - The Impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI)’, Research Policy, 32, 123-142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1995), ‘How Superorganisms Change: Consensus Formation and the Social Ontology of High-Energy Physics Experiments’, Social Studies of Science, 25, 119-147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, Stefan (2005), ,Hochschul-Governance im Wandel. Neuere Beiträge der vergleichenden Hochschulforschung’, Soziologische Revue, 27, 309-321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit (1999), Interdisziplinäre Forschungskooperation: Erfolgsbedingungen der Institution ‘Sonderforschungsbereich’, Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit (2005), ‘Migration Currents among the Scientific Elite’, Minerva, 43, 377-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit and Jochen Gläser (2007), ‘From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of Early Career Researchers’, Higher Education (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, Grit and Gabriele Valerius (2001), Innovationskollegs als ,Korrekturinstitutionen’ im Institutionentransfer? Abschlussbericht zum DFG-Projekt ,Innovationskollegs als Instrument der Umgestaltung der unviversitären Forschung im ostdeutschen Transformationsprozess - Akteure, Strukturen und Effekte’, FIT Arbeitsberichte, Frankfurt (Oder): Europa-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurter Institut für Transformationsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand, Julian, (1991), ‘The Theory of Government Failure’, British Journal of Political Science, 21, 423-442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Grand, Julian and Will Bartlett (eds.) (1993), Quasi-Markets and Social Policy, Houndmills: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levačić, Rosalind (1991), ‘Markets and Government: An Overview’, in Grahame Thompson, Jennifer Frances, Rosalind Levaéiæ and Jeremy Mitchell (eds), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. The Coordination of Social Life, London: SAGE, pp. 35-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, Ingo (2003), ‘Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems’, Higher Education, 46, 469-489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, Richard G. and K. Alec Chrystal (1999), Principles of Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, Lisa (2006), The Research Game in Academic Life, Maidenhead: The Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNay, Ian (1997), The Impact of the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise on Individual and Institutional Behaviour in English Higher Education: Summary Report and Commentary, Anglia Polytechnic University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Norma (2000), ‘Science Policy in Action: Policy and the Researcher’, Minerva, 38, 425-451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Norma (2002), ‘The Developing Role of Departments’, Research Policy, 31, 817-833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, Charles (1997), ‘The Correlation Between Citation Counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British Research in Genetics, Anatomy and Archaelogy’, Journal of Documentation, 53, 477-487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, Charles (2002), Organizing America. Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, Andy and Andy Hector (2000), Getting the Measure of Biodiversity, Nature, 405, 212-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehberg, Karl-Siegbert (2003), Brief an den niedersächsischen Minister für Wissenschaft und Kultur vom 13. Oktober 2003, Dresden, http://www.soziologie.de/dokumente/stellung_hannover.pdf (accessed 19 February 2007).

  • Roberts, Sir Gareth (2002), Set for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills, London: HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Sir Gareth (2003), Review of Research Assessment, London: Higher Education Funding Council for England, http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp.

  • Schimank, Uwe (2005), “New Public Management’ and the Academic Profession: Reflections on the German Situation’, Minerva, 43, 361-376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Nicholas (2006), The Economics of Climate Change, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./_independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm (accessed 31 May 2007).

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2000), Economics of the Public Sector, New York and London: W W Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Pedro, Ben Jongbloed, Alberto Amaral and David Dill (2004), ‘Introduction’, in Pedro Teixeira, Ben Jongbloed, David Dill and Alberto Amaral (eds.), Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, Don F. (1997), ‘A Solid Base for Decisions: Use of VSNU Research Evaluations in Dutch Universities’, Higher Education, 33, 397-413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard (2000 [1984]), The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard (2003), ‘Competition and Pluralism in the Public Sciences: The Impact of Institutional Frameworks on the Organisation of Academic Science’, Research Policy, 32, 1015-1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, Charles (1988), Markets or Governments: Choosing between Imperfect Alternatives, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Jochen Gläser Dr.

Authors
  1. Jochen Gläser Dr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, UK

    Richard Whitley

  2. University of Lancaster, UK

    Jochen Gläser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gläser, J. (2007). The Social Orders of Research Evaluation Systems. In: Whitley, R., Gläser, J. (eds) The Changing Governance of the Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation