Should science be evaluated?

This article discusses different approaches to the evaluation of science and higher education. The author distinguishes three types of research assessment: one where substantial evaluation is an integral part of the research itself, a moral one, which implies ethical assessment of the research procedures and its implications, and a utilitarian assessment, which refers to the weighting of the research costs and benefits for society. It is this third type of evaluation that the article discusses in details. The author demonstrates that instead of evaluating costs and benefits per se, utilitarian evaluation today is based upon bibliometric indicators, which provide false expectations of objectivity and quantifiability and about the democratic nature of such research assessment. Bibliometric research indicators form also the basis of the institutional assessment of higher education organizations in the framework of world university rankings. The article problematizes the simplified concept of research university, in correspondence to which higher education institutions are evaluated according to the conducted research. The author claims that quantitative evaluation motivates individuals and organizations to adopt a certain type of opportunistic behavior, harmful for the organic development of research.