IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v46y2019i2p210-218..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards making research evaluation more compatible with developmental goals

Author

Listed:
  • Rodrigo Arocena
  • Bo Göransson
  • Judith Sutz

Abstract

Research evaluation practices linked to social impact have important systemic effects on the prioritization and organization of research while at the same time leading to the delivery of higher social value. Amidst growing criticisms, global research evaluation has evolved in a different direction, characterized by quantitative metrics and mimetic behavior. The article deals with the forces that sustain the prevailing research evaluation system, asks why it has proven to be so resilient, and discusses alternative proposals. A new argument for building an alternative is put forward: the need for a developmental role for universities, introducing the notion of ‘connected autonomy’ allowing universities to productively and in a nonsubordinated way collaborate with a broad set of actors to achieve desirable social changes. An outline is presented for how to make research evaluation practices and the pursuit of developmental goals more compatible, an important issue for knowledge public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rodrigo Arocena & Bo Göransson & Judith Sutz, 2019. "Towards making research evaluation more compatible with developmental goals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 210-218.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:2:p:210-218.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy051
    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:scippl:v:46:y:2019:i:2:p:210-218.. 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/spp .

    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.