scholarly journals Your Brother’s Gatekeeper: How Effects of Evaluation Machineries in Research Are Sometimes Enhanced

Author(s):  
Peter Dahler-Larsen

AbstractMany warnings are issued against the influence of evaluation machineries (such as bibliometric indicators) upon research practices. It is often argued that human judgment can function as a bulwark against constitutive effects of evaluation machineries. Using vignettes (small case narratives) related to the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI), this chapter shows that gatekeepers who “know the future” and use this “knowledge” in a preemptive or precautionary way play a key role in the construction of reality which comes out of the BRI. By showing that human judgment sometimes enhances or multiplies the effects of evaluation machineries, this chapter contributes to an understanding of mechanisms which lead to constitutive effects of evaluation systems in research.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Fox ◽  
Katy E Pearce ◽  
Adrienne L Massanari ◽  
Julius Matthew Riles ◽  
Łukasz Szulc ◽  
...  

Abstract The open science (OS) movement has advocated for increased transparency in certain aspects of research. Communication is taking its first steps toward OS as some journals have adopted OS guidelines codified by another discipline. We find this pursuit troubling as OS prioritizes openness while insufficiently addressing essential ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Some recommended open science practices increase the potential for harm for marginalized participants, communities, and researchers. We elaborate how OS can serve a marginalizing force within academia and the research community, as it overlooks the needs of marginalized scholars and excludes some forms of scholarship. We challenge the current instantiation of OS and propose a divergent agenda for the future of Communication research centered on ethical, inclusive research practices.


Author(s):  
Lina Markauskaite ◽  
Mary Anne Kennan ◽  
Jim Richardson ◽  
Anindito Aditomo ◽  
Leonie Hellmers

Why and how do researchers collaborate, share knowledge resources, data, and expertise? What kinds of infrastructures and services do they use, and what do they need for the future enhancement of collaborative research practices? The chapter focuses on existing and potential eResearch from a “user” perspective. Drawing on a study of ICT-enhanced research practices and needs conducted at seven Australian universities, it discusses how researchers engage with distributed research and use ICT for collaboration. Findings show significant current engagement of the majority of researchers in collaborative research, their acknowledgement of the potential of eResearch, and researchers’ general willingness to engage in collaborative eResearch. While there are some essential differences in the collaboration practices of research students and academics and between practices and challenges in different disciplinary domains, researchers who are more involved in collaborative research also adopt eResearch more extensively, more often use ICT-enhanced collaboration tools, share more of their data, and more often disseminate their findings via digital media.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-249
Author(s):  
Lisa Parks

In this interview, Lisa Parks shares her reflections on a range of questions that remain central to her research, including what television is at the present moment and might become in the future; how satellites could be treated as part of an integrated history of media; the compartmentalizations of academia; research on surveillance, and the relationship between surveillance and capitalism; the invisibility and materiality of infrastructure, and the significance of field-based research practices; the entanglement of scholarship and social engagement; the emerging Silicon Valley satellite industry, vertical mediation and political resistance; and the urgency of environmental media studies.


Author(s):  
Aaron M. Kuntz

Conventional approaches to qualitative research seek to distill and capture meaning through a sequence of determined, progressive methodological steps that serve to synthesize difference toward a series of overarching claims regarding human experience. This approach reifies contemporary neoliberal values and, as a consequence, short-circuits any possibility for progressive social change. Through conventional research practices, the principles of security, schizoid, and statistical society accelerate, extending normalizing processes of governmentality, and producing a docile citizenry adverse to key elements of an engaged democracy. In such circumstance, risk is identified as the production of findings that are ambiguously defined, not attending to values of certainty and generalizable outcomes. As a consequence, conventional methodological practices fail to engage the postmodern condition—fragmented experiences with inconclusive outcomes are displaced by methodologies bent on merging difference into foreclosed meaning. Contrary to conventional approaches to research, post-foundational orientations emphasize relational logics that maintain difference within the inquiry project itself. A provocative example of this extends from newly materialist approaches to qualitative inquiry that emphasizes the productive possibilities inherent in difference and, as such, displace the simplified dialectical reasoning of conventional approaches in favor of more dialogic recognition of diffractive patterning. In this sense, open-ended difference makes possible previously unrecognized (even unthought) possibilities for being otherwise. As such, newly materialist approaches to inquiry manifest alternative ontological and epistemological practices that are not available to the conventional methodologist; they make possible an open-ended vision of the future that is necessary for radical democratic action. Furthermore, the fluid nature of such methodologies align well with Foucault’s explication of parrhesia, a means of truth-making that creates new possibilities for becoming otherwise. The intersection of newly materialist methodologies with parrhesia challenges methodologists to risk the very relations that secure their expertise, establishing a moral challenge to the impact of past practice on the possibilities inherent in the future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Hollinshead

In this article—which is based on my keynote presentation at the "Welcoming Encounters: Tourism Research in a Postdisciplinary Era" 2013 conference at the Institute of Ethnology, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland—I maintain that postdisciplinarity is a form of painstaking (in time and effort) inquiry that makes considered use of academic and nonacademic forms of knowing to trace the plural truths that apply in difficult-to-fathom globalizing/decolonizing/postcolonial settings. In this article, I suggest that open-to-the-future postdisciplinary styles of research are critically valuable where a range or multiplicity of interpretive cultural/cosmological outlooks on the world has been poorly understood, and where important longstanding or emergent en groupe perspectives have been ignored or subjugated by governing powers/agencies. In suggesting that those who work in tourism scenarios regularly have to deal with such difficult contestations of value across the globe—where the poesis or the fantasmatics of local/contesting populations are decidedly different—I draw particularly on Gilroy's work on "diaspora" and on Bhabha's thinking on "emergent/hybrid locations of culture" to highlight the sorts of difficult-to-read ambivalent/protean/transgressive identifications that are readily the stuff of postdisciplinary inquiry. The article closes with the recognition that today, postdisciplinary investigators can harness much from the recent liberation in "social justice research practices" that Denzin and Lincoln (and their myriad of diverse critico-interpretive/qualitative researchers) have advocated, notably the advances in "bricoleurship" recently conceptualized by Kincheloe.


2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 365-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Stürmer ◽  
Aileen Oeberst ◽  
Roman Trötschel ◽  
Oliver Decker

Abstract. Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.


Author(s):  
Patricia Leavy

Patricia Leavy, editor of the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, offers some final comments about the future of qualitative research. Leavy suggests there is a widespread move from a disciplinary to a transdisciplinary research structure in which problems of import are at the center of research practices. Within this context, qualitative researchers are well positioned to advance because of their ability to develop responsive and flexible research designs and present their work in multiple formats. Furthermore, Leavy notes how the broader move toward public scholarship is propelling both the practice of qualitative research and the teaching of qualitative methods.


Author(s):  
Patricia Leavy

This chapter offers some final comments from Patricia Leavy, editor of The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, second edition, about the future of qualitative research. The chapter suggests there is a widespread move from a disciplinary to a transdisciplinary research structure in which problems of import are at the center of research practices. Within this context, qualitative researchers are well positioned to advance because of their ability to develop responsive and flexible research designs and present their work in multiple formats. Furthermore, the chapter notes how the broader move toward public scholarship is propelling both the practice of qualitative research and the teaching of qualitative methods.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinghuan Shi ◽  
Hamish Coates

AbstractThis paper outlines the rationales shaping the papers presented in this issue of the International Journal of Chinese (IJCE). To provide context for the contributions, it looks at policy contexts, institutional developments, major guiding research projects, and various engagement platforms. The papers are reviewed in terms of their implications for shaping the future of higher education evaluation and success.


2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-120
Author(s):  
Sally A. Weller

AbstractThis paper contributes to building better methods in economic geography by examining the coevolution of theory, methodology, and should read methodology, and the practice of research methods with the policy context. The paper suggests that debates about how economic geography defines its theoretical and methodological boundaries have not been sufficiently cognizant of the effects of policy engagement. It posits that the politicized contemporary context is aligning research practices to policy constituencies, reshaping research questions, altering the criteria of research validity, increasing the division between qualitative and quantitative approaches, and solidifying divisions between different sub-branches of the discipline. This process is illustrated by way of a genealogy of studies of plant closures. The conclusion links these changes to questions about the future of the discipline.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document