评价与创新:对立的一对?

IF 1.9 4区社会学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales Pub Date : 2021-06-12 DOI:10.1177/05390184211018670

F. D’Agostino, J. Malpas

{"title":"评价与创新:对立的一对?","authors":"F. D’Agostino, J. Malpas","doi":"10.1177/05390184211018670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Picking up on Olof Hallonsten’s contention that contemporary science evaluation is ‘mostly counterproductive’, we argue that the contemporary focus on evaluation is antagonistic to innovation or novelty in science, even though innovation is one of the values that evaluation is often supposed to support. In arguing for the antagonistic relation between evaluation and innovation, we consider arguments from the nature of audit and the situational logic of scientific practice.","PeriodicalId":47697,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales","volume":"60 1","pages":"345 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211018670","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation and innovation: An antagonistic pair?\",\"authors\":\"F. D’Agostino, J. Malpas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/05390184211018670\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Picking up on Olof Hallonsten’s contention that contemporary science evaluation is ‘mostly counterproductive’, we argue that the contemporary focus on evaluation is antagonistic to innovation or novelty in science, even though innovation is one of the values that evaluation is often supposed to support. In arguing for the antagonistic relation between evaluation and innovation, we consider arguments from the nature of audit and the situational logic of scientific practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"345 - 349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/05390184211018670\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184211018670\",\"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/10.1177/05390184211018670","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

根据奥洛夫·哈伦斯滕(Olof Hallonsten)关于当代科学评价“大多适得其反”的论点，我们认为，当代对评价的关注与科学中的创新或新颖性是对立的，尽管创新是评价通常应该支持的价值观之一。在论证评价与创新之间的对立关系时，我们考虑了来自审计本质和科学实践情境逻辑的论点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Evaluation and innovation: An antagonistic pair?

Picking up on Olof Hallonsten’s contention that contemporary science evaluation is ‘mostly counterproductive’, we argue that the contemporary focus on evaluation is antagonistic to innovation or novelty in science, even though innovation is one of the values that evaluation is often supposed to support. In arguing for the antagonistic relation between evaluation and innovation, we consider arguments from the nature of audit and the situational logic of scientific practice.

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

Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales Multiple-

CiteScore

2.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.