Skip to main content

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Angermuller, Johannes. 2013. How to become an academic philosopher. Academic discourse as multileveled positioning practice. Sociología Histórica 2013: 263–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermuller, Johannes. 2015. The moment of theory. The rise and decline of structuralism in France and beyond. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. Scott. 1997. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baert, Patrick. 2012. Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 42: 304–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, Charles. 1981. What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review: Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics 63: 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Brink, Marieke, and Yvonne Benschop. 2012. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization 19: 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, Roger. 2012. Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review 60: 355–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen. 1983. The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 89: 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Randall. 2000. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry H., and Robert Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Francis L., and Gil-Sung Park. 2016. Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education 72: 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Combes, Pierre-Philippe, Laurent Linnemer, and Michael Visser. 2008. Publish or peer-rich? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors. Labour Economics 15: 423–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, and Mike Reed. 2008. Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrick, Gemma E., and Gabrielle N. Samuel. 2016. The evaluation scale: Exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva 54: 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • East, John W. 2011. The scholarly book review in the humanities. An academic cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43: 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2016. Engines of anxiety. Rankings, reputation, and accountability in a quantified world. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Eliza D., Charles J. Gomez, and Daniel A. McFarland. 2016. Measuring paradigmaticness of disciplines using text. Sociological Science 2016: 757–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. New York: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fochler, Maximilian, Ulrike Felt, and Ruth Müller. 2016. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 54: 175–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The making of an American philosopher. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont, and Grégoire Mallard. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review 69: 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, Julian. 2016a. ‘Let us salute one of our kind’. How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. Poetics 56: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, Julian. 2016b. The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education 72: 761–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammarfelt, Björn. 2014. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 101: 1419–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargens, Lowell L. 1988. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53: 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2014. Rankings and the global reputation race. New Directions for Higher Education 2014: 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesselmann, Felicitas, Verena Graf, Marion Schmidt, and Martin Reinhart. 2016. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology online first: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschauer, Stefan. 2010. Editorial judgements: A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science 40: 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle. 1987. How to become a dominant French philosopher: The case of Jacques Derrida. The American Journal of Sociology 93: 584–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2011. Comparing customary rules of fairness: Evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels. In Social knowledge in the making, ed. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 209–232. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, Grégoire Mallard, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2006. Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation 15: 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1988. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, Chris. 2012. If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry 38: 599–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, Bruce, and Roy Y. Chan. 2014. The last judgement: Exploring intellectual leadership in higher education through academic obituaries. Studies in Higher Education 39: 294–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology, and Human Values 34: 573–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ben R. 2011. The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation 20: 247–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meruane, Omar Sabaj, Carlos Gonzáles Vergara, and Álvaro Pina-Stranger. 2016. What we still don’t know about peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47: 180–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, Henk F., Marc Luwel, and Anton J. Nederhof. 2002. Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends 50: 498–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, Christine. 2009. The market for academics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Measuring excellence in social sciences and humanities: Limitations and opportunities. In Global university rankings. Challenges for European higher education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 147–165. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, Anton J. 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics 66: 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaisen, Jeppe. 2002. The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation 11: 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochsner, Michael, Sven E. Hug, and Hans-Dieter Daniel, eds. 2016. Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, David. 2015. All that is solid. Bench-building at the frontiers of two experimental sciences. American Sociological Review 80: 1201–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posselt, Julie R. 2015. Disciplinary logics in doctoral admissions: Understanding patterns of faculty evaluation. The Journal of Higher Education 86: 807–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posselt, Julie R. 2016. Inside graduate admissions. Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, Martin. 2009. Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine: Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics 81: 789–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Rijcke, Sarah, Paul Wouters, Alex D. Rushforth, Thomas P. Franssen, and Björn Hammarfelt. 2015. Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – A literature review. Research Evaluation 25: 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, Lawrence E., and Elmer A. Spreitzer. 1970. Book reviewing in the social sciences. The American Sociologist 5: 358–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roumbanis, Lambros. 2016. Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups. Social Studies of Science, online first.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandström, Ulf, and Martin Hällsten. 2008. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74: 175–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, Michael, and Wendy N. Espeland. 2009. The Discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review 74: 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siler, Kyle, and David Strang. 2016. Peer review and scholarly originality. Let 1,000 flowers bloom, but don’t step on any. Science, Technology, and Human Values 42: 29–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Laurence D., Lisa A. Best, Alan D. Stubbs, John Johnston, and Andrea B. Archibald. 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science 30: 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, David, and Kyle Siler. 2015. Revising as reframing. Original submissions versus published papers in administrative science quarterly, 2005 to 2009. Sociological Theory 33: 71–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26: 309–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teplitskiy, Misha. 2016. Frame search and re-search: How quantitative sociological articles change during peer review. The American Sociologist 47: 264–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsay, Angela, Michèle Lamont, Andrew Abbott, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2003. From character to intellect: Changing conceptions of merit in the social sciences and humanities, 1951–1971. Poetics 2003: 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, Richard D. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, Ezra W. 2012. Construction, concentration, and (dis)continuities in social valuations. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Hamann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hamann, J., Beljean, S. (2017). Academic Evaluation in Higher Education. In: Shin, J., Teixeira, P. (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_295-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_295-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics