Senior academics as key negotiators in the implementation of impact policies in the social sciences and humanities

Dieser Artikel basiert auf der Arbeit von COST Action 15137, dem Europaischen Netzwerk fur Forschungsevaluierung in der SSH (ENRESSH) und wird von COST (Europaische Zusammenarbeit in Wissenschaft und Technologie) unterstutzt. In diesem Papier verfolgen wir zwei Hauptziele. Zunachst uberprufen wir die relevante Literatur und prasentieren sie anhand eines theoretischen Rahmens, der strukturelle Perspektiven und die Berucksichtigung individueller Handlungsspielraume miteinander verbindet, um ein besseres Verstandnis fur die Rolle von Hochschullehrern in den Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaften (SSH) bei der Umsetzung der verschiedenen Politiken, die die Produktion, die Verbreitung und die Evaluierung von Forschung betreffen, einschlieslich der wirkungsbezogenen Politiken zu erhalten. Tatsachlich kann die Verhandlungsmacht der Wissenschaftler in Bezug auf die Wirkungsagenda - wie sie derzeit von europaischen politischen Entscheidungstragern gefordert wird (siehe z. B. Europaische Kommission 2018) und die Auswirkungen auf Politik, Wirtschaft sowie Umwelt und Gesellschaft - nicht isoliert betrachtet werden und wie ihre Wahrnehmung und Haltung gegenuber den allgemeinen politischen Veranderungen, die sich auf die Praxis der akademischen Forschung auswirken, sind. Zweitens diskutieren wir einige vorlaufige Ergebnisse der Interviews, die wir im Rahmen der COST ENRESSH-Aktion mit 16 in acht europaischen Landern tatigen hochrangigen Soziologen durchgefuhrt haben, wobei wir uns auf deren Wahrnehmung und Einstellung zur Wirkungsagenda konzentrieren.

[1]  J. Barry,et al.  Stressing Academe: The Wear and Tear of the New Public Management , 2002 .

[2]  S. Clegg.  Academic identities under threat , 2008 .

[3]  Pölönen Janne,et al.  Local Use of a National Rating of Publication Channels in Finnish Universities [NWB'2016 poster] , 2016 .

[4]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries , 2016, Scientometrics.

[5]  D. Knights,et al.  A labour of love? Academics in business schools , 2012 .

[6]  Gina Anderson.  Mapping Academic Resistance in the Managerial University , 2008 .

[7]  Carole Leathwood,et al.  Research policy and academic performativity: compliance, contestation and complicity , 2013 .

[8]  Oili-Helena Ylijoki,et al.  Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research , 2003 .

[9]  Oili-Helena Ylijoki,et al.  The construction of academic identity in the changes of Finnish higher education , 2013 .

[10]  Ross Deuchar,et al.  Facilitator, director or critical friend?: contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles , 2008 .

[11]  Marcela Linkova,et al.  Unable to resist: Researchers’ responses to research assessment in the Czech Republic , 2013 .

[12]  C. Hood.  THE “ NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ” IN THE 1980 s : VARIATIONS ON A THEME , 2003 .

[13]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Governing Science , 2016, European Journal of Sociology.

[14]  A. Wilkinson,et al.  The Academic Game: Compliance and Resistance in Universities , 2018 .

[15]  Sarah de Rijcke,et al.  Accountability in context: effects of research evaluation systems on publication practices, disciplinary norms, and individual working routines in the faculty of Arts at Uppsala University , 2015 .

[16]  M. Mazzucato,et al.  Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector , 2018, Industrial and Corporate Change.

[17]  R. Merton.  The Normative Structure of Science , 1973 .

[18]  J. Spaapen,et al.  Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment , 2011 .

[19]  R. Whitley,et al.  Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation , 2014 .

[20]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[21]  Pia Bøgelund,et al.  How Supervisors Perceive PhD Supervision - And How They Practice It , 2015 .

[22]  Katherine Smith.  Research, policy and funding - academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces. , 2010, The British journal of sociology.

[23]  Jaakko Suominen,et al.  "A1 alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikauslehdessä" : uusien julkaisukäytänteiden omaksuminen ihmistieteissä 2000-luvulla , 2015 .

[24]  Arie Rip,et al.  Scientists' coping strategies in an evolving research system: the case of life scientists in the UK , 2006 .

[25]  R. Deem.  'New managerialism' and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom , 1998 .

[26]  C. Oliver.  STRATEGIC RESPONSES TO INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES , 1991 .

[27]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  The evolution of research activity in Spain , 2003, Research Policy.

[28]  L. Leišytė.  University governance and academic research : case studies of research units in Dutch and English universities , 2007 .

[29]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Quantifying ‘Output’ for Evaluation: Administrative Knowledge Politics and Changing Epistemic Cultures in Dutch Law Faculties , 2016 .

[30]  Emanuel Kulczycki,et al.  Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries , 2018, Scientometrics.

[31]  Marc Vanholsbeeck.  La notion de Science Ouverte dans l’Espace européen de la recherche: Entre tendances à l’« exotérisation » et à la « gestionnarisation » de la recherche scientifique , 2017 .

[32]  Anne Lee,et al.  How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision , 2008 .

[33]  Peter Weingart,et al.  Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? , 2005, Scientometrics.

[34]  Alice Lam,et al.  From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’? Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-Industry Boundaries , 2009 .

[35]  Anthony Dudo,et al.  Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage , 2018, Science Communication.

[36]  R. Whitley,et al.  The Impact of Institutional Reforms on the Nature of Universities as Organisations , 2014 .

[37]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  How scientists view the public, the media and the political process , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[38]  Norbert Lossau,et al.  Evaluation of Research Careers fully acknowledging Open Science Practices - Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science , 2017 .

[39]  Pieta Eklund,et al.  The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: Evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities , 2016 .

[40]  Tereza Stöckelová,et al.  Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment , 2012 .

[41]  John Chandler,et al.  Between the Ivory Tower and the Academic Assembly Line , 2001 .

[42]  Christine Teelken.  Compliance or pragmatism: how do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries , 2012 .

[43]  H. Boer,et al.  New Public Management and the Academic Profession - the Rationalisation of Academic Work Revisited , 2009 .

[44]  Paul Wouters,et al.  Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review , 2016 .

[45]  B. Kehm,et al.  Effects of New Governance on Research in the Humanities – The Example of Medieval History , 2010 .

[46]  Birte Fähnrich.  Book review: Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship Davies Sarah R. Horst Maja Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship , London : Palgrave Macmillan , 2016 . 266 pp. ISBN 978-1-137-50366-4 . €95 (hardback). , 2018, Public understanding of science.