La marea métrica y su resaca: la experiencia británica en evaluación y gestión de la investigación

López Ruiz, Osvaldo Javier La marea métrica y su resaca: la experiencia británica en evaluación y gestión de la investigación. Palabra Clave (La Plata), 2023, vol. 12, n. 2, e180. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of PCe180.pdf]
Preview
 Text
PCe180.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (1MB) | Preview

English abstract

This article reviews the British experience with the use of metrics in the evaluation and management of research, moving from an initial period of “enthusiastic” implementation to a period of cautious review and concern about the distorting effects they have had on scientific practices and their results. ere is currently a concern and a need for a cultural change in the use of metrics that reverses the harmful consequences of their irresponsible use for the scientific-academic system, its institutions and individuals. Following the implementation of New Public Management, the UK was one of the first countries to establish an audit culture based on managerial criteria brought in from the private sector. What the evidence analyzed in the reports of a review of independent experts convened by the British government shows is that managerial rationality ends up, in many cases, prevailing over the rationality of science itself. Members of the scientific community end up having to adapt, deviating from their objectives and, sometimes, having to take shortcuts to the good practices that the community itself has established. In response to this situation, a number of initiatives are being promoted in the UK to counteract this trend. As this situation is also found in other countries, other recent proposals to restore to the academic community and research cultures effective leadership and control over their own management are reviewed.

Spanish abstract

Este artículo revisa lo que ha sido la experiencia británica con el uso de las métricas en la evaluación y gestión de la investigación, pasando desde un primer momento de implementación “entusiasta”, a otro de revisión cautelosa y preocupada por los efectos distorsivos que éstas han tenido en las prácticas científicas y en sus resultados. Actualmente se plantea la necesidad de un cambio cultural en el uso de las métricas que revierta las consecuencias dañinas que está teniendo la utilización poco responsable delas mismas para el sistema científico-académico, sus instituciones y sus individuos. Tras la implementación del New Public Management, el Reino Unido fue uno de los primeros países en establecer una cultura de auditoría basada en criterios manageriales traídos del sector privado. Lo que muestra la evidencia analizada en los informes de una revisión de expertos independientes convocados por el gobierno británico es que la racionalidad managerial acaba, en muchos casos, prevaleciendo sobre la racionalidad de la propia ciencia y los miembros de la comunidad científica terminan teniendo que adaptarse, desviándose de sus objetivos y, aveces, teniendo que tomar atajos a las buenas prácticas que la propia comunidad ha establecido. Frente a esta situación, una serie de iniciativas vienen siendo promovidas en el Reino Unido para contrarrestar esta tendencia. Como esta situación se registra también en otros países, son revisadas otras propuestas recientes para devolverle a la comunidad académica y a las culturas de investigación el liderazgo efectivo y el control sobre su propia gestión.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Rationality, Metrics, Research evaluation, Research management, United Kingdom, Racionalidad, Métricas, Evaluación de la investigación, Gestión de la investigación, Reino Unido
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information
F. Management.
F. Management. > FJ. Knowledge management
Depositing user: Palabra Clave
Date deposited: 03 Aug 2023 16:57
Last modified: 27 Sep 2023 10:54
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/44612

References

Arbix, G., Salerno, M. S., Toledo, D., Miranda, Z. & Álvarez, R. (2010). Inovação: estratégias de sete países. Brasília: ABDI.

Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Benedictus, R., Miedema, F. & Ferguson, M. W. (2016). Fewer numbers, better science. Nature, 538, 453-455. https://doi.org/10.1038/538453a

Colquhoun, D. (1 de diciembre de 2014). Publish and perish at Imperial College London: the death of Stefan Grimm [mensaje en el blog DC’s Improbable Science]. Recuperado de http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/01/publishand-perish-at-imperial-college-london-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/

Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D., van der Weijden, I. & Wilsdon, J. (2020). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles & the way ahead. RoRI Working Paper N° 3. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914

Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). (2018). DORA roadmap: a two-year strategic plan for advancing global research assessment reform at the institutional, national, and funder level. Recuperado de https://sfdora.org/2018/06/27/dora-roadmap-a-two-year-strategic-plan-for-advancing-global-research-assessment-reform-at-the-institutional-national-and-funder-level/

Delgado López-Cózar, E. & Martí-Martín, A. (2022). Detectando patrones anómalos de publicación científica en España: más sobre el impacto del sistema de evaluación científica. ResearchGate [Preprint, Septiembre 2022]. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363535388

Delgado López-Cózar, E., Ràfols, I. & Abadal, E. (2021). Letter: A call for a radical change in research evaluation in Spain. El profesional de la información, 30(3), 2-30. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.may.09

Dijstelbloem, H., Huisman, F., Miedema, F. & Mijnhardt, W. (2013). Why science does not work as it should? And what to do about it. Recuperado de http://www.scienceintransition.nl/app/uploads/2013/10/Science-in-Transition-Position-Paper-final.pdf

European Commission, Directorate General for Research and Innovation. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. Publications Office. Recuperado de https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/836532

European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Peters, I., Frodeman, R. & Wilsdon, J. (2017). Next-generation metrics: responsible metrics and evaluation for open science. Publications Office. Recuperado de https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/337729

Forum for Responsible Research Metrics (FFRRM). (2018a). UK Progress towards the use of metrics responsibly. Three years on Thom The metric tide report. Recuperado de https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//31945/

Forum for Responsible Research Metrics (FFRRM). (2018b). FFRRM’s advice to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 panels, 26 jul. 2018.

Hazelkorn, E. (2015). The Obsession with rankings in tertiary education: implications for public policy. Recuperado de https://hepru.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/the-obsession-with-rankings-in-tertiary-education_wb_0115.pdf

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S. & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2015a). The metric tide: correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics. Supplementary report II to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3362.4162

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2015b). The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment [entrevista de Steven Hill a James Wilsdon, 9 jul. 2015]. Recuperado de https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhci90s-WPw

López Ruiz, O. J. (2010). As inovações institucionais no Reino Unido. En G. Arbix, M. S. Salerno, D. Toledo, Z. Miranda & R. Álvarez (Eds.). Inovação: estratégias de sete países (pp. 246-280). Brasília: ABDI.

Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A. M., Foeger, N. & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: fostering research integrity. PLoS biology, 18(7), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Muller, J. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Plackett, B. (2020). Five better ways to assess cience. Hong Kong principles seek to replace “public or perish” culture. Nature index. Recuperado de https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/five-better-ways-to-assess-science-research-metrics

Salatino, M. & López Ruiz, O. (2021). El fetichismo de la indexación. Una crítica latinoamericana a los regímenes de evaluación de la ciencia mundial. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad (CTS), 16(46), 73-100. Recuperado de http://www.revistacts.net/contenido/numero-46/el-fetichismo-de-la-indexacion-una-critica-latinoamericana-a-los-regimenes-de-evaluacion-de-la-ciencia-mundial/

Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and liberal governance: universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropological theory, 8(3), 278-298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499608093815

Shore, C. & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: the rise of audit culture in higher education. En M. Strathern (Ed), Audit cultures: anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57-89). London: Routledge.

Strathern, M. (Ed). (2000). Audit cultures: anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.

Tickell, A. (2022). Independent review of research bureaucracy. Recuperado de https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-research-bureaucracy

Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E. Campbell, Ph., Curry, S.,… Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S.,… Franssen, T. (2015). e metric tide: literature review (Supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520

Zhang, L. & Sivertsen, G. (2020). The new research assessment reform in China and its implementation. Scholarly assessment reports, 2(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.15


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS