IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/scaman/v25y2009i2p225-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are more and better indicators the solution?

Author

Listed:
  • Osterloh, Margit
  • Frey, Bruno S.

Abstract

Summary We discuss Starbuck's proposal to improve decision processes in scholarly evaluation. While we agree that more variety is needed in evaluation committees, we suggest to enlist scholars from other research fields rather than people from outside academia. We disagree with the proposal that more and better indicators of research effectiveness will improve research. We argue that this even would lead to worse results than what is observed today. Attention would be deviated from the content of research, and intrinsic motivation, which is essential for good research, would be crowded out. We propose that evaluations that are based on indicators need to be pushed back. After a careful selection process, researchers need to be given the opportunity to pursue the research they consider to be fruitful.

Suggested Citation

  • Osterloh, Margit & Frey, Bruno S., 2009. "Are more and better indicators the solution?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 225-227, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:225-227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522109000359
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Ayaita & Kerstin Pull & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2017. "You get what you 'pay' for: Academic attention, career incentives and changes in publication portfolios of business and economics researchers," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0133, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW), revised Sep 2017.

    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:eee:scaman:v:25:y:2009:i:2:p:225-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/872/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.