Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure

Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Klebel, Thomas; Knoth, Petr and Pontika, Nancy (2023). Value dissonance in research(er) assessment: individual and perceived institutional priorities in review, promotion, and tenure. Science and Public Policy (Early access).

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad073

Abstract

There are currently broad moves to reform research assessment, especially to better incentivize open and responsible research and avoid problematic use of inappropriate quantitative indicators. This study adds to the evidence base for such decision-making by investigating researcher perceptions of current processes of research assessment in institutional review, promotion, and tenure processes. Analysis of an international survey of 198 respondents reveals a disjunct between personal beliefs and perceived institutional priorities (‘value dissonance’), with practices of open and responsible research, as well as ‘research citizenship’ comparatively poorly valued by institutions at present. Our findings hence support current moves to reform research assessment. But we also add crucial nuance to the debate by discussing the relative weighting of open and responsible practices and suggesting that fostering research citizenship activities like collegiality and mentorship may be an important way to rebalance criteria towards environments, which better foster quality, openness, and responsibility.

Viewing alternatives

Download history

Metrics

Public Attention

Altmetrics from Altmetric

Number of Citations

Citations from Dimensions

Item Actions

Export

About