‘Scaling’ the academia: Perspectives of academics on the impact of their practices

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Yaşar Kondakçı, Merve Zayim-Kurtay, Sevgi Kaya-Kasikci, Hanife Hilal Senay, Busra Kulakoglu
{"title":"‘Scaling’ the academia: Perspectives of academics on the impact of their practices","authors":"Yaşar Kondakçı, Merve Zayim-Kurtay, Sevgi Kaya-Kasikci, Hanife Hilal Senay, Busra Kulakoglu","doi":"10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The pressure on the universities to take a visible place in the rankings has caused anachronistic policies and practices in evaluating the performance of universities. The value attributed to the rankings results in policies prioritizing the criteria imposed by rankings while evaluating the performance of academics, which successively causes several issues in assessing the real impact of the academic practices. Considering these criticisms and concerns about the impact assessment, this study aimed at exploring the perceptions of academics about the impact of their academic practices. Adapting the interpretive phenomenological design, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 participants from the field of education in five flagship universities of Turkey. The findings of the study revealed that, although impact assessment understanding of the academics and their institutions go parallel with covering the practices around three basic missions of the university, many activities go in between without recognition by the same impact assessment practices. Interestingly, the academics exhibited their commitment to institutional policies in impact assessment practices; however, they exhibit resentment for the same policies due to failing to recognize the localized mission of the university, threatening the deeply rooted values of the academy, fouling the academy with ethical violations, and causing further detachment between academic practices and societal needs. The concerns and criticism of the current impact assessment are likely to alter the priorities of the universities and push them to adapt an impact assessment, which is less relevant to the local needs of their societies.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/RESEVAL/RVAB015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The pressure on the universities to take a visible place in the rankings has caused anachronistic policies and practices in evaluating the performance of universities. The value attributed to the rankings results in policies prioritizing the criteria imposed by rankings while evaluating the performance of academics, which successively causes several issues in assessing the real impact of the academic practices. Considering these criticisms and concerns about the impact assessment, this study aimed at exploring the perceptions of academics about the impact of their academic practices. Adapting the interpretive phenomenological design, the data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 participants from the field of education in five flagship universities of Turkey. The findings of the study revealed that, although impact assessment understanding of the academics and their institutions go parallel with covering the practices around three basic missions of the university, many activities go in between without recognition by the same impact assessment practices. Interestingly, the academics exhibited their commitment to institutional policies in impact assessment practices; however, they exhibit resentment for the same policies due to failing to recognize the localized mission of the university, threatening the deeply rooted values of the academy, fouling the academy with ethical violations, and causing further detachment between academic practices and societal needs. The concerns and criticism of the current impact assessment are likely to alter the priorities of the universities and push them to adapt an impact assessment, which is less relevant to the local needs of their societies.
学术界的“规模化”:学术界对其实践影响的观点
大学在排名中占据明显位置的压力导致了评估大学表现的不合时宜的政策和做法。排名的价值导致政策在评估学术表现的同时,优先考虑排名所强加的标准,这在评估学术实践的实际影响时接连引发了几个问题。考虑到这些批评和对影响评估的担忧,本研究旨在探讨学术界对其学术实践影响的看法。采用解释性现象学设计,通过对来自土耳其五所旗舰大学教育领域的20名参与者的半结构化访谈收集数据。研究结果表明,尽管学者及其机构对影响评估的理解与涵盖大学三个基本使命的实践是平行的,但许多活动介于两者之间,没有得到相同影响评估实践的认可。有趣的是,学者们在影响评估实践中展示了他们对体制政策的承诺;然而,他们对同样的政策表现出不满,因为他们没有认识到大学的本地化使命,威胁到学院根深蒂固的价值观,用违反道德的行为玷污了学院,并导致学术实践与社会需求之间的进一步脱节。对当前影响评估的担忧和批评可能会改变大学的优先事项,并促使它们调整影响评估,而影响评估与当地社会的需求不太相关。
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
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
×
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