IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v31y2022i4p438-451..html

Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Hamann
  • Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner

Abstract

Curricula vitae (CVs) are a crucial device for the evaluation of academic personae and biographies. They play a key role in the competitive assessments that underpin the reproduction of the academic workforce. Drawing on 80 CVs which have been part of candidates’ applications for vacant professorships, our article provides a longitudinal study of the development of CVs used by German scholars in professorial appointment procedures in the disciplines of German studies and history between 1950 and the late 2010s. The analysis reveals the evolution of CVs by tracing their various morphological shifts. We distinguish four formats throughout the period of study: CVs initially had a (1) narrative format that develops into an (2) intermediary segmented form before CVs take on a (3) list form in which biographical information congeals into distinct categories. In the 2010s, the list form develops into a (4) hyper-differentiated list form in which coherent biographical representations are finally dissolved into almost eclectic accumulations of finely grained performance categories. Against the backdrop of this finding, the contribution concludes with three general observations: First, the evolution of CVs reflects changes in the institutional environment, not least the increased competitive pressures in academic careers. Second, the evolution of biographical representations also conveys a transformation of the academic persona throughout which boundaries between personal and professional biographies are established. Third, we propose a reactivity of current list form CVs through which academics are disciplined to live up to the categories that wait to be realized in their CVs.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Hamann & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2022. "Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 438-451.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:31:y:2022:i:4:p:438-451.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvab040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Csiszar, 2016. "Peer review: Troubled from the start," Nature, Nature, vol. 532(7599), pages 306-308, April.
    2. Björn Hammarfelt & Alexander D. Rushforth, 2017. "Indicators as judgment devices: An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 169-180.
    3. Ruth Müller & Sarah de Rijcke, 2017. "Thinking with Indicators. Exploring the Epistemic Impacts of Academic Performance Indicators in the Life Sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 361-361.
    4. Lucien Karpik, 2010. "Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9215, December.
    5. Ruth Müller & Sarah de Rijcke, 2017. "Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 157-168.
    6. David Budtz Pedersen & Jonas Følsgaard Grønvad & Rolf Hvidtfeldt, 2020. "Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 4-21.
    7. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    8. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    9. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    10. Carolina Cañibano & Javier Otamendi & Inés Andújar, 2008. "Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV analysis: the case of the Ramón y Cajal programme in Spain," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 17-31, March.
    11. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Bibliometrics in Press. Representations and uses of bibliometric indicators in the Italian daily newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2195-2233, May.
    2. Tony Ross-Hellauer & Thomas Klebel & Petr Knoth & Nancy Pontika, 2024. "Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 337-351.
    3. Michaela Strinzel & Josh Brown & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner & Sarah Rijcke & Michael Hill, 2021. "Ten ways to improve academic CVs for fairer research assessment," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-4, December.
    4. Frank J. Rijnsoever & Laurens K. Hessels, 2021. "How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1917-1948, December.
    5. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    7. Anne K. Krüger, 2020. "Quantification 2.0? Bibliometric Infrastructures in Academic Evaluation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 58-67.
    8. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    9. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    10. Mona Farouk Ali, 2025. "Investigating shifts in publication patterns after launching scientometric evaluation at Egyptian universities: an analysis of submitted research for promotion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1751-1787, March.
    11. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    12. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.
    13. Julian Hamann & Frerk Blome & Anna Kosmützky, 2022. "Devices of evaluation: Institutionalization and impact—Introduction to the special issue," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 423-428.
    14. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    15. Olesia Iefremova & Kamil Wais & Marcin Kozak, 2018. "Biographical articles in scientific literature: analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1695-1719, December.
    16. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    17. Weishu Liu & Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu, 2017. "Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 355-364, January.
    18. David A. Pendlebury, 2019. "Charting a path between the simple and the false and the complex and unusable: Review of Henk F. Moed, Applied Evaluative Informetrics [in the series Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Scientific and Scholarly Communication, Wolfgang Glänzel, A," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 549-560, April.
    19. Qingqing Zhou, 2024. "Evaluating book impacts via integrating multi-source reviews," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6931-6946, November.
    20. Paul Donner, 2017. "Document type assignment accuracy in the journal citation index data of Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 219-236, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:31:y:2022:i:4:p:438-451.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.