Making Lists, Enlisting Scientists: The Bibliometric Indicator and Classification Controversies
by Casper Bruun Jensen, ITU
How to measure research? As part of scientific investigation this question has been central to research since the pioneering efforts of Derek de Solla Price and Eugene Garfield. It has also been an increasingly central concern for research policy makers. In the Danish context it has been manifested through recent efforts to develop a bibliometric research indicator.
This paper analyzes the process leading to the indicator and asks how the indicator enable stakeholders “to learn about” scientific quality. How was the bibliometric research indicator conceptualised and how was the actual development process envisioned? Who were involved and why? How did classification of research output occur? And which controversies did this engender?
The paper fuses two central areas of concern within STS. It continues the exploration of ‘classification and its consequences’ (Bowker and Star 1999). The study is also indebted to research into scientific controversies. It uses the methodological approach of opening the (never quite) black box of the indicator in order to unpack its assumptions and tensions from within.
Joining classification and controversy studies, the paper aims to elucidate assumptions about science, about scientists, about scientific knowledge, and about scientific collaboration that were built into the indicator. The analysis shows a two-sided process in which scientists become engaged in making lists but which was simultaneously a way for research policy to enlist scientists, thereby ensuring buy-in and legitimacy to the general aim of measuring scientific production and quality in new ways.
Casper Bruun Jensen is Associate Professor at the IT University.
Arranged by:
Department of Organization
Tid:
21.06
14.00
-16.00
Sted:
Department of Organization
Kilen, Kilevej 14A
2000 Frederiksberg
Lokale: K4.74
Sidst opdateret af Dorrit Majlund 27.05.2010