1,721,045 research outputs found
Implementationsforschung, Reallabore und Forschungsevaluation: Was die Wissenschaftspolitik berücksichtigen sollte
No full textNeue Konzepte in der Forschungslandschaft haben das Potenzial, Veränderung und Innovation zu bewirken. Ob sie wirklich neu sind, wird aber oft nicht kritisch hinterfragt. Die Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften sollten jedenfalls nicht den Trends nachrennen, welche die anderen Disziplinen vorgeben, sondern ihre Energie darauf verwenden, ihre eigenen Konzepte zu erklären.Cite as: Ochsner, Michael (2023): Implementationsforschung, Reallabore und Forschungsevaluation: Was die Wissenschaftspolitik berücksichtigen sollte, in: Implementation – Wissenschaft und gesellschaftliche Transformation (Bulletin der Schweizerischen Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften 29,1), S. 20–23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.785194
Accountability in academic life:introduction to European perspectives on societal impact evaluation
No full textAccountability in Academic Life: European Perspectives on Societal Impact Evaluation is an edited collection dedicated to providing European perspectives on the state of societal impact evaluation at the beginning of the twenty-first century, paying special attention to the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The book explores the consequences of the trend for evaluating the quality of research in terms of the basis of the impact that it creates in society, and, we argue, that it is in SSH disciplines that the effects of societal impact evaluation are most visible. Across Europe, the implementation of systematic societal impact evaluation has taken off over the last decade, and we can already see its profound influences on the choices and decisions taken by universities, by faculties and departments, and individual researchers. This introductory chapter explains this international and contemporary context for the edited collection and explains the two-part structure of the book. Accountability in Academic Life documents and articulates the effects that the evaluation of the social impact of research is having on the ways that SSH researchers steer and regulate themselves, and ultimately on SSH research itself. Through this analysis, it also sets out to think more profoundly about the research-society nexus and its relation to research evaluation
The need for historical inquiry into societal impact evaluation:towards a genealogy of the notion of useful research
No full textThis chapter calls for the need for historical inquiry when discussing current societal impact evaluation. The chapter offers a critique of The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Gibbons et al., 1994). We also observe how their ideas lie at the heart of the current impact agenda in Europe. The chapter challenges the idea of societal impact as a new or emerging phenomenon due to the nature of how research and society develop by analysing the main assumptions of their arguments and showing how the same claims have been made several times throughout history. In doing so, we reveal that it is not the relation between science and society that is changing but the ideology in governance. Second, we propose a typology that helps us to systematise approaches towards conceptualising the research-society nexus. This offers the possibility of contextualising current societal impact evaluation practices and in identifying potential alternatives. It serves as a tool for the future development of a “genealogy of useful research” that will deepen our understanding of the relation between research and society
The ESF Scoping Project ‘Towards a Bibliometric Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities’
No full textThis paper is a brief report on the European Science Foundation (ESF) Scoping Project, installed in 2009, results published in 2010, which examines the potential for developing some form of research output database that could be used for assessing research performance in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). Suggestions were made as to how such a database might look
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
