IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v27y2018i2p53-62..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Semantic tone of research ‘environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Evaluation Framework 2014

Author

Listed:
  • Andy Thorpe
  • Russell Craig
  • Glenn Hadikin
  • Sasa Batistic

Abstract

This article applies DICTION computer-assisted text analysis software to evaluate the tone of research ‘Environment’ submissions by Business and Management Studies schools in the UK’s 2014 Research Evaluation Framework. We find that submissions contain distinctive differences in semantic tone between high-ranked and low-ranked universities, particularly in terms of DICTION’s master variable, ACTIVITY. The language of high-ranked institutions has a tone of low ACTIVITY, whereas the language of low-ranked institutions has a tone of high ACTIVITY. More adjectives are used than expected: by high-ranked universities to bolster strong public reputations, and by low-ranked universities to atone for weaknesses. High-ranked universities are advantaged because they are more likely to be represented on assessing panels and be better-attuned to reader expectations. The results suggest that low-ranked universities could have achieved higher scores by reflecting on particular areas of word choice and the potential effects of those choices on assessors.

Suggested Citation

  • Andy Thorpe & Russell Craig & Glenn Hadikin & Sasa Batistic, 2018. "Semantic tone of research ‘environment’ submissions in the UK’s Research Evaluation Framework 2014," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 53-62.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:53-62.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvx039
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:27:y:2018:i:2:p:53-62.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.