IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v19y2010i3p227-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards socially robust S&T indicators: indicators as debatable devices, enabling collective learning

Author

Listed:
  • Rémi Barré

Abstract

Since indicators play an increasing role for decisions regarding research policy and management, the issues of their epistemological status and conditions of robustness are important ones. The purpose of this article is to show that the building and interpretation of S&T indicators is a normative process which is thus debatable, such debates having to take the form of collective learning processes through what we call the ‘indicators assessment forum’. One can identify several international working groups and conferences dedicated to indicators discussion, which raises the issue of the extent to which they fulfill the mission of being assessment forums for the indicators. In conclusion, the article first calls for evaluating their capacity for fostering such collective learning and, second, suggests that being debatable is not a limitation, but the essence of the contribution of indicators to decision-making processes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Rémi Barré, 2010. "Towards socially robust S&T indicators: indicators as debatable devices, enabling collective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 227-231, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:19:y:2010:i:3:p:227-231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820210X512069
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Franc Mali, 2013. "Why an Unbiased External R&D Evaluation System is Important for the Progress of Social Sciences—the Case of a Small Social Science Community," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:19:y:2010:i:3:p:227-231. 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.