Although science has been a formidably successful force of social and technological development in the modern era, and a main reason for the wealth and well-being of current societies compared to ...previous times, a fundamental distrust characterizes its current status in society. According to prevalent discourse, science is insufficiently productive and in need of stricter governance and bureaucratic management, with performance evaluation by the means of quantitative metrics as a key tool to increase efficiency. The basis of this notion appears to be a belief that the key or only purpose of science is to drive economic growth, or sustainable development in combination with economic growth. In this article, these beliefs are analyzed and deconstructed with the help of a theoretical toolbox from the classic sociology of science and recent conceptualizations of economization, democratization, and commodification of scientific knowledge and the institution of science, connecting these beliefs to broader themes of market fundamentalism and to the metric fixation of current society. With the help of a historical-sociological analysis, this article shows that the current ubiquity of performance evaluation in science for the most part is pointless and counterproductive, and that this state of science policy is in dire need of reevaluation in order to secure science’s continued productivity and contribution to social and technological innovation.
Evaluation is ubiquitous in current (academic) science, to the extent that it is relevant to talk about an evaluation regime. How did it become this way? And what does it mean for scientists, groups, ...organizations, and fields? Picking up on the inspiring debate in a previous issue of this journal, four articles in this special section go deeper in studying the causes and consequences of the current evaluation regime in (academic) science, contributing with new insight as well as opening important new routes for further investigation. This introductory essay provides a background and framework to the special section and points out some key takeaways from the articles included.
The institution of science is said to be under pressure from political, economic and social interests, manifested in alleged bureaucratization, managerial reforms, anti-intellectual movements on ...university campuses, and widespread questioning of expert knowledge in society. Commercialization of academic publishing and the growth of competitive funding have increased the importance of journal and grant peer review in science and seem also to have contributed to the proliferation of false impressions about the nature of scientific knowledge production and science’s role in society. In this article, these developments are problematized and put into perspective with the help of classic sociological theory in a Weberian and Mertonian tradition, in an attempt to shed new light on the debate on the governance and institutional autonomy of science. First, academic science is identified as a Weberian value sphere with “internal and lawful autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit), and the broader functionalist context of this supposition is discussed. Second, Merton’s theory of the normative structure of science is used to give specific content to Eigengesetzlichkeit in the case of science. Third, the concept of organized skepticism is developed to represent a range of social patterns ubiquitous in scientific practice, and its epistemological and sociological foundations are discussed. Organized skepticism is thus identified as the essential feature of science’s Eigengesetzlichkeit.
In an attempt to summarize and draw preliminary conclusions from the many fine responses to my article ‘Stop evaluating science’, this short piece brings some additional reflections on the topic with ...the primary intent not to close the debate but to keep it open. Discussing, in turn, three main topics of the responses and an additional topic that arguably is of particular interest, the article’s intent is to celebrate the great insights and contributions that surfaced in the debate so far by adding some notes on how to take the issue further in future scholarly inquiry and discussion.
What’s wrong with creativity? Schaefer, Stephan M; Hallonsten, Olof
Organization (London, England),
07/2024, Letnik:
31, Številka:
5
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In this essay we put forward a critique of the prevailing orthodoxy of creativity and innovation which are rarely fundamentally questioned neither in science nor in public discourse. We urge to ...reconsider contemporary purposes and consequences of what we call instrumental and humanist conceptions of creativity and innovation. Based on our critique we speak out to transcend reified notions of creativity and innovation by engaging in disciplined imagination of desirable alternative futures using the example of craft as a timeless form of work. Craft, we argue, prefigures a type of creativity and innovation that addresses the social and ecological challenges of contemporary economy and society and may thus serve as a source for inspiration to radically re-think current, ingrained notions of creativity and innovation.
Many claims have been made in the past that Management and Organization Studies (MOS) is becoming increasingly fragmented, and that this fragmentation is causing it to drift into self-reference and ...irrelevance. Despite the weight of this claim, it has not yet been subjected to a systematic empirical test. This paper addresses this research gap using the tribalization approach and diachronic co-citation analyses. Based on 22,430 papers published in 14 MOS journals between 1980 and 2019, we calculate local and global centrality measures and the flow of cited articles between co-citation communities over time. In addition, we use a node-removal strategy to test whether only ritualized citations ensure MOS cohesion. Rather than tribalization, our results suggest a center–periphery structure. Furthermore, more peripheral papers are integrated into the central co-citation communities, but the lion's share of the flow of cited papers occurs over time to only a small number of large clusters. An increase of fragmentation and crowding-out of smaller clusters in MOS in seen in the polycentrically organized core 2014–2019.
In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by ‘neoliberal’ ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an ...understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific design, we discuss the existence or non-existence of neoliberal motivations and rationales. Overall, we find that a relatively homogeneous academic landscape, with a high degree of centralization and government steering, appears to be a common feature for countries implementing national evaluation systems relying on bibliometrics. Such characteristics, we argue, may not be inductively understood as neoliberal but as indications of national states displaying strong political steering of its research system. Consequently, if used without further clarification, ‘neoliberalism’ is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful when analyzing the development of research evaluation and bibliometric measures in the past half a century.
Innovation is generally viewed as something inherently good, a source of progress and prosperity in our society. But innovation can also have negative, unintended, and wasteful effects, if policies ...are misdirected and organizations pursue innovation to look good and convey a message, rather than to actually achieve improvements of technologies, services, and products. This book makes the case that innovation has become a buzzword, a political cure-all, and increasingly an empty phrase, and that this has become detrimental to innovation itself. Governmental (and supra-governmental) innovation policy is often unrealistically phrased and shaped, and corporate innovation projects are not seldom meaningless acts of window-dressing. The book describes the problems this presents for society, organizations, and individuals, and seeks explanations for why it has come to be this way. Giving way to a more realistic view of what innovation really is, and how it can be accomplished, the book develops a multifaceted sociological and historical argument where several complementary reasons for the prevalence of “empty innovation” are proposed. The book will be of great interest to scholars and students of innovation, entrepreneurship, sustainability, and all those with an interest in the failures of current innovation strategies. This is an open access book.
Swedish universities and colleges have received a substantial funding increase since the turn of the millennium, as part of continued policies of expanding the admission of students to higher ...education to broader layers of the population and strengthen Swedish public research and development to increase the competitiveness of the Swedish knowledge-based economy. In this article, publicly available statistics are used to trace how this increase in funding has been used by the sector. Comparing figures on income (base grant for research, third-party funding and base grant for education) with statistics on personnel and student enrolment as well as data on actual expenditure, the article draws some conclusions that are used to discuss some common misunderstandings and erroneous beliefs, including claims of a 'depletion' of the base grant for research and an uninhibited growth of the number of administrative staff, which are common themes in the Swedish and international debate over higher education.
Organizational scholars have long studied and theorized the apparent divergence of discourse and practice in organizational settings, and how it affects leadership, management, and professional work. ...In this article, we review this work and connect it to an hitherto unexplored philosophical line of thought from the writings of the late Czech playwright, dissident and president Václav Havel. In 1978, Havel published an essay that discussed the consequences of the disconnect between official discourse, promoted by the communist regime, and the everyday life of Czechoslovak citizens. His ideas about the ‘yawning abyss’ between the two, and the resulting ‘pseudo-reality’, are explored in this article, as food for thought about organizational life in late modern capitalism.
PDF
