Gradgrinding the Social Sciences: The Politics of Metrics of Political Science
- 1 January 2009
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Political Studies Review
- Vol. 7 (1), 73-83
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00172.x
Abstract
This article employs an interpretive approach, and in the light of contributions to this symposium by Butler and McAllister, and McLean et al., holds that metrics of research ‘quality’ are socially constructed and hence are as ‘subjective’ as peer review. Thus it rejects the use of stand-alone metrics as an ‘objective’ basis to inform funding allocations. Rather, the optimum method of ‘quality’ assessment is a panel-based exercise with expert judgement informed by a range of discipline-sensitive metrics and peer review of publications. The article maintains that the politics of metrics of political science conceals interests about the foundations of social scientific knowledge, and so the dispute over metrics and peer review is a metaphor for the conflicting epistemological preferences of UK political scientists. It is also argued that metrics-led assessment subjects political science to ‘Gradgrinding’ on two fronts: that political science departments amount to less than the sum of their parts, and the audit culture strips the discipline of its humanism.This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Metrics or Peer Review? Evaluating the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise in Political SciencePolitical Studies Review, 2009
- Comparative Journal Ratings: A Survey ReportPolitical Studies Review, 2009
- The Hidden Perils of Citation Counting for Australasian Political ScienceAustralian Journal of Political Science, 2007
- The qualitative future of research evaluationScience and Public Policy, 2007
- Introduction: Future pathways for science policy and research assessment: metrics vs peer review, quality vs impactScience and Public Policy, 2007
- Assessing university research: a plea for a balanced approachScience and Public Policy, 2007
- The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer reviewScience and Public Policy, 2007
- A Global Ranking of Political Science DepartmentsPolitical Studies Review, 2004
- Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociologyJournal of Documentation, 1997
- Careers in Print: Books, Journals, and Scholarly ReputationsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1995