The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Alex Rushforth, Björn Hammarfelt
{"title":"The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account","authors":"Alex Rushforth, Björn Hammarfelt","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Recent years have seen a rise in awareness around “responsible metrics” and calls for research assessment reforms internationally. Yet within the field of quantitative science studies and in research policy contexts, concerns about the limitations of evaluative bibliometrics are almost as old as the tools themselves. Given that many of the concerns articulated in recent reform movements go back decades, why has momentum for change grown only in the past ten years? In this paper, we draw on analytical insights from the sociology of social movements on collective action frames to chart the emergence, development, and expansion of “responsible metrics” as a professional reform movement. Through reviewing important texts that have shaped reform efforts, we argue that hitherto, three framings have underpinned the responsible metrics reform agenda: the metrics scepticism framing, the professional-expert framing, and the reflexivity framing. We suggest that while these three framings have co-existed within the responsible metrics movement to date, co-habitation between these framings may not last indefinitely, especially as the responsible metrics movement extends into wider research assessment reform movements.\n \n \n https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00280\n","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":"47 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent years have seen a rise in awareness around “responsible metrics” and calls for research assessment reforms internationally. Yet within the field of quantitative science studies and in research policy contexts, concerns about the limitations of evaluative bibliometrics are almost as old as the tools themselves. Given that many of the concerns articulated in recent reform movements go back decades, why has momentum for change grown only in the past ten years? In this paper, we draw on analytical insights from the sociology of social movements on collective action frames to chart the emergence, development, and expansion of “responsible metrics” as a professional reform movement. Through reviewing important texts that have shaped reform efforts, we argue that hitherto, three framings have underpinned the responsible metrics reform agenda: the metrics scepticism framing, the professional-expert framing, and the reflexivity framing. We suggest that while these three framings have co-existed within the responsible metrics movement to date, co-habitation between these framings may not last indefinitely, especially as the responsible metrics movement extends into wider research assessment reform movements. https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00280
责任度量作为一场专业改革运动的兴起:集体行动框架账户
近年来,人们对“负责任的指标”的认识有所提高,并呼吁国际上进行研究评估改革。然而,在定量科学研究领域和研究政策背景下,对评价文献计量学局限性的担忧几乎与这些工具本身一样古老。鉴于最近的改革运动中所表达的许多关切可以追溯到几十年前,为什么改革的势头只在过去十年才有所增长?在本文中,我们利用社会运动社会学对集体行动框架的分析见解,描绘了“负责任指标”作为一种专业改革运动的出现、发展和扩展。通过回顾影响改革努力的重要文本,我们认为,迄今为止,有三种框架支撑着负责任的指标改革议程:指标怀疑框架、专业-专家框架和反身性框架。我们建议,虽然这三种框架迄今为止在责任度量运动中共存,但这些框架之间的共存可能不会无限期地持续下去,特别是当责任度量运动扩展到更广泛的研究评估改革运动时。https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00280
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信