IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/c2zn5.html

Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the 2022 Research Excellence Framework in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth

    (University of Bristol)

  • Watermeyer, Richard
  • Batalla, Margarida Borras

Abstract

In aggressively neo-liberalised higher education systems and in ‘high-performing’ research units – typically academic schools in high-ranking research universities – research assessment has come to dominate the daily organisation and enactment of research and research culture. So much so in fact that academics’ research praxis, their employability, career trajectories and very lexicon are in synthesis with the manufacture and mediation of performance values, often to the detriment of collegiality, critical citizenship and self-efficacy. Research assessment as a technology of governance is thus also a ‘disruptive technology’ epidemic to the (re)making of academic lives. Notwithstanding, studies of the affective aspects of research assessment and its emotional manipulation of academic lives are at best thin. Further, less is known of what we call ‘affective auditing’ from the perspective of academic middle-managers with institutional responsibility for implementing assessment procedures and with direct experience of the disruptiveness of research assessment at meso and micro levels. By way of response, this article reports on findings from interviews with academic middle or quasi managers responsible for overseeing research assessment in research elite universities in the high-performance and highly pressurised research context of the UK. These accounts elucidate the weight of ‘affective auditing’ on academic researchers and academic quasi-managers and the extent to which research assessment shapes the emotional contours of research lives.

Suggested Citation

  • Derrick, Gemma Elizabeth & Watermeyer, Richard & Batalla, Margarida Borras, 2022. "Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the 2022 Research Excellence Framework in the UK," SocArXiv c2zn5, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:c2zn5
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/c2zn5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/62444eae1b0a6e03a9f79933/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/c2zn5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sirris, Stephen, 2019. "Coherent identities and roles? Hybrid professional managers’ prioritizing of coexisting institutional logics in differing contexts," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4).
    2. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    3. Gemma Derrick, 2020. "How COVID-19 lockdowns could lead to a kinder research culture," Nature, Nature, vol. 581(7806), pages 107-108, May.
    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. Richard Watermeyer & Gemma Elizabeth Derrick & Mar Borras Batalla, 2022. "Affective auditing: The emotional weight of the research excellence framework," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 498-506.
    2. repec:osf:socarx:c2zn5_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Zheng Yan & Wenqian Robertson & Yaosheng Lou & Tom W. Robertson & Sung Yong Park, 2021. "Finding leading scholars in mobile phone behavior: a mixed-method analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9499-9517, December.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Leonid Gokhberg & Tatiana Kuznetsova & Maxim Kotsemir, 2023. "From the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation: publication activity dynamics along the evolution of national science policies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6195-6246, November.
    8. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    10. Tatiana Marina & Ivan Sterligov, 2021. "Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in Scopus on the country level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5019-5077, June.
    11. Kaile Gong, 2023. "Twenty years of Chinese social sciences towards internationalization (1998–2017): a knowledge sources perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6373-6402, December.
    12. Kate Williams, 2022. "Hybrid knowledge production and evaluation at the World Bank [The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(4), pages 513-527.
    13. Louise Yngve, 2022. "Individual Actors Coping with Institutional Complexity Within a State-civil Society Partnership: The Role of Sensemaking," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1237-1255, December.
    14. Corsi, Marcella & D’Ippoliti, Carlo & Zacchia, Giulia, 2019. "Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    15. Helena Francke & Björn Hammarfelt, 2022. "Competitive exposure and existential recognition: Visibility and legitimacy on academic social networking sites," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 429-437.
    16. SooJeung Lee & Su Jin Kim & Sunna Park & Jung Cheol Shin, 2025. "Unequal metrics in research publications: the impact of bibliometric databases and faculty size across academic disciplines on university rankings in South Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 641-663, February.
    17. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    18. Yurij L. Katchanov & Yulia V. Markova, 2017. "The “space of physics journals”: topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 313-333, October.
    19. Coburn, Josie & Yaqub, Ohid & Chataway, Joanna, 2022. "Targeting research to address societal needs: What can we learn from 30 years of targeting neglected diseases?," SocArXiv 65ws7, Center for Open Science.
    20. Milojević, Staša & Radicchi, Filippo & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Citation success index − An intuitive pair-wise journal comparison metric," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 223-231.
    21. Cruz-Castro, Laura & Sanz-Menendez, Luis, 2021. "What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:c2zn5. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.