评审员的一切权力:卓越研究框架两级监督下的英国社会学

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Oliver J. Wieczorek, R. Münch, Daniel Schubert
{"title":"评审员的一切权力:卓越研究框架两级监督下的英国社会学","authors":"Oliver J. Wieczorek, R. Münch, Daniel Schubert","doi":"10.1177/05390184231158210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our study investigates the impact of the British Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 and Research Excellence Framework in 2014 on the diversity and topic structure of UK sociology departments from the perspective of habitus-field theory. Empirically, we train a Latent Dirichlet allocation on 819,673 abstracts stemming from the journals in which British sociologists submitted at least one paper in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 or Research Excellence Framework 2014. We then employ the trained model on the 4822 papers submitted in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 and 2014. Finally, we apply multiple factor analysis to project the properties of the departments in the topic space. Our topic model uncovers generally low levels of research diversity. Topics with global reach related to political elites, demography, knowledge transfer, and climate change are on the rise, whereas locally constrained research topics on social problems and different dimensions of social inequality get less prevalent. Additionally, some of the declining topics are getting more aligned to elite institutions and high ratings. Furthermore, we see that the associations between different funding bodies, topics covered, and specialties among sociology departments changed from 2008 to 2014. Nonetheless, topics aligned to different societal elites are found to be associated with high Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores, while social engineering topics, postcolonial- and cultural-related, as well as more abstract topics are related to lower Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores.","PeriodicalId":47697,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","volume":"61 1","pages":"481 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All power to the reviewers: British sociology under two-level supervision of the Research Excellence Framework\",\"authors\":\"Oliver J. Wieczorek, R. Münch, Daniel Schubert\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/05390184231158210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our study investigates the impact of the British Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 and Research Excellence Framework in 2014 on the diversity and topic structure of UK sociology departments from the perspective of habitus-field theory. Empirically, we train a Latent Dirichlet allocation on 819,673 abstracts stemming from the journals in which British sociologists submitted at least one paper in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 or Research Excellence Framework 2014. We then employ the trained model on the 4822 papers submitted in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 and 2014. Finally, we apply multiple factor analysis to project the properties of the departments in the topic space. Our topic model uncovers generally low levels of research diversity. Topics with global reach related to political elites, demography, knowledge transfer, and climate change are on the rise, whereas locally constrained research topics on social problems and different dimensions of social inequality get less prevalent. Additionally, some of the declining topics are getting more aligned to elite institutions and high ratings. Furthermore, we see that the associations between different funding bodies, topics covered, and specialties among sociology departments changed from 2008 to 2014. Nonetheless, topics aligned to different societal elites are found to be associated with high Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores, while social engineering topics, postcolonial- and cultural-related, as well as more abstract topics are related to lower Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"481 - 528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184231158210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184231158210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究从习惯场理论的角度考察了2008年英国研究评估活动和2014年研究卓越框架对英国社会学系多样性和课题结构的影响。在经验上,我们对来自英国社会学家在2008年研究评估活动或2014年研究卓越框架中至少提交一篇论文的期刊的819,673篇摘要进行了潜在狄利克雷分配。然后,我们将训练后的模型应用于2008年和2014年研究评估活动中提交的4822篇论文。最后,我们运用多因素分析来预测各部门在主题空间中的属性。我们的主题模型揭示了研究多样性水平普遍较低。与政治精英、人口统计学、知识转移和气候变化相关的具有全球影响力的主题正在增加,而关于社会问题和社会不平等不同维度的局部约束研究主题则不那么普遍。此外,一些排名下降的话题与精英院校和高排名的关系越来越密切。此外,从2008年到2014年,社会学系不同资助主体、不同课题、不同专业之间的关联发生了变化。然而,与不同社会精英相关的主题被发现与较高的研究评估活动/研究卓越框架得分相关,而社会工程主题,后殖民和文化相关以及更抽象的主题与较低的研究评估活动/研究卓越框架得分相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
All power to the reviewers: British sociology under two-level supervision of the Research Excellence Framework
Our study investigates the impact of the British Research Assessment Exercise in 2008 and Research Excellence Framework in 2014 on the diversity and topic structure of UK sociology departments from the perspective of habitus-field theory. Empirically, we train a Latent Dirichlet allocation on 819,673 abstracts stemming from the journals in which British sociologists submitted at least one paper in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 or Research Excellence Framework 2014. We then employ the trained model on the 4822 papers submitted in the Research Assessment Exercise 2008 and 2014. Finally, we apply multiple factor analysis to project the properties of the departments in the topic space. Our topic model uncovers generally low levels of research diversity. Topics with global reach related to political elites, demography, knowledge transfer, and climate change are on the rise, whereas locally constrained research topics on social problems and different dimensions of social inequality get less prevalent. Additionally, some of the declining topics are getting more aligned to elite institutions and high ratings. Furthermore, we see that the associations between different funding bodies, topics covered, and specialties among sociology departments changed from 2008 to 2014. Nonetheless, topics aligned to different societal elites are found to be associated with high Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores, while social engineering topics, postcolonial- and cultural-related, as well as more abstract topics are related to lower Research Assessment Exercise/Research Excellence Framework scores.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Social Science Information is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research in the social sciences at large with special focus on theoretical debates, methodology and comparative and (particularly) cross-cultural 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