Stop Evaluating Science: A Historical-Sociological Argument
Abstract
Although science has been a formidably successful force of social and technological development in the modern era, and a principal reason for the wealth and well-being of modern societies in comparison to those of the past, its current status in society is characterized by profound distrust. According to the prevalent discourse, science is insufficiently productive and needs 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 the belief that the sole purpose, or at least the key purpose, of science is to drive economic growth or, alternatively, sustainable development in combination with economic growth. In this article, these beliefs are analysed and deconstructed with the help of a theoretical toolbox from classic sociology of science and recent conceptualizations of economization, democratization, and commodification of scientific knowledge and the institution of science. This connects 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 is pointless, for the most part, and counterproductive, and that this state of science policy is in dire need of reevaluation in order to secure the continued productivity of research and its contribution to social and technological innovation.
References
1. Agar J. Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012.
2. Andreasen L. E. Europe’s Next Step: Organisational Innovation, Competition and Employment, Abingdon, Routledge, 1995.
3. Baldwin M. Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of ‘Peer Review’ in the Cold War United States. Isis, 2018, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 538–558.
4. Beck U. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity], Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya, 2000.
5. Berman E. P. Creating the Market University. How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2012.
6. Berman E. P. Not Just Neoliberalism: Economization in Us Science and Technology Policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2014, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 397–431.
7. Bernal J. D. The Social Function of Science, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1967.
8. Blasi B., Romagnosi S., Bonaccorsi A. Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)? The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (ed. A. Bonaccorsi), New York, Springer, 2018, pp. 361–392.
9. Bok D. Universitety v usloviiakh rynka. Kommertsializatsiia vysshego obrazovaniia [Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2012.
10. Bonaccorsi A. Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH. The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (ed. A. Bonaccorsi), New York, Springer, 2018, pp. 1–29.
11. Bourdieu P. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market, New York, The New Press, 1998
12. Butler L. Assessing University Research: A Plea for a Balanced Approach. Science and Public Policy, 2007, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 565–574.
13. Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
14. Campbell R., Meadows A. Scholarly Journal Publishing: Where Do We Go From Here? Learned Publishing, 2011, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 171–181.
15. Cohen I. B. Revolution in Science, Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985.
16. Cole J. R. Academic Freedom Under Fire. Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom? (eds A. Bilgrami, J. R. Cole), New York, Columbia University Press, 2015, pp. 27–39.
17. Cole J. R. The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected, New York, Public Affairs, 2009.
18. Cole J. R., Cole S. Social Stratification in Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.
19. Collini S. Zachem nuzhny universitety? [What Are Universities For?], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2016.
20. Cozzens S. E. The Discovery of Growth: Statistical Glimpses of Twentieth-Century Science. Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (eds J. Krige, D. Pestre), Abingdon, Routledge, 2003, pp. 127–141.
21. Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias (eds B. Godin, D. Vinck), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017.
22. Dosi G., Llerana P., Labini M. S. The Relationships Between Science, Technologies and Their Industrial Exploitation: An Illustration Through the Myths and Realities of the So-Called “European Paradox”. Research Policy, 2006, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1450–1464.
23. Drucker P. Epokha razryva. Orientiry dlya nashego menyayushchegosya obshchestva [The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society], Moscow, Vil’yams, 2007.
24. Durkheim É. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda [De la division du travail social], Moscow, Kanon, 1996.
25. Edquist C., McKelvey M. High R&D Intensity Without High Tech Products: A Swedish Paradox. Institutions and Economic Change: New Perspectives on Markets, Firms and Technology (eds K. Nielsen, B. Johnson), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1998, pp. 131–149.
26. Ejermo O., Kander A. The Swedish Paradox Revisited. Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional Regions (eds C. Karlsson, B. Johansson, R. Stough), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009, pp. 49–76.
27. Elzinga A. Features of the Current Science Policy Regime: Viewed in Historical Perspective. Science and Public Policy, 2012, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 416–428.
28. Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research at the End of an Era (eds R. S. Rosenbloom, W. J. Spencer), Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
29. Espeland W. N., Sauder M. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 2007, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–40.
30. Expertisation and Democracy in Europe (eds M. Góra, C. Holst, M. Warat), Abingdon, Routledge, 2018.
31. Foucault M. Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tyur’my [Surveiller et pounir. Naissance de la Prison], Moscow, Ad Marginem Press, 2018.
32. Geiger R. L., Sá C. Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008.
33. Gertner J. The Idea Factory. Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation, New York, Penguin, 2012.
34. Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990.
35. Ginsberg B. The Fall of the Faculty, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.
36. Giroux H. A. The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex, Boulder, Paradigm Publishers, 2007.
37. Godin B. The Linear Model of Innovation. The Historical Construction of an Analytical Frameworkscience, Political Power and the State. Science, Technology & Human Values, 2006, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 639–667.
38. Granberg A., Jacobsson S. Myths or Reality: A Scrutiny of Dominant Beliefs in the Swedish Science Policy Debate. Science and Public Policy, 2006, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 321–340.
39. Greenberg D. S. Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2007.
40. Gribbe J., Hallonsten O. The Emergence and Growth of Materials Science in Swedish Universities. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 2017, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 459–493.
41. Guston D. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
42. Hagstrom W. The Scientific Community, New York, Basic Books, 1965.
43. Hallonsten O. Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
44. Hallonsten O. On the Essential Role of Organized Skepticism in Science’s “Internal and Lawful Autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit). Journal of Classical Sociology, March 2021, doi:10.1177/1468795X211000247.
45. Hallonsten O., Eriksson H., Collsiöö A. The Role of Research Infrastructures in Innovation Systems: The Case of Swedish Participation in the Halden Reactor Project (Hrp). Big Science and Research Infrastructures in Europe (eds K. Cramer, O. Hallonsten), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2020, pp. 177–197.
46. Han B. C. The Burnout Society, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press, 2015.
47. Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for WorldClass Excellence, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
48. Hicks D. Performance-Based University Research Funding Systems. Research Policy, 2012, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 251–261.
49. History of the University in Europe. Vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (ed. H. De Ridder-Symoens), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
50. Hood C. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1995, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 93–109.
51. Hull D. L. Science as a Process, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
52. Irvine J., Martin B. R. Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners, London, Pinter Publishers, 1984.
53. Jacobsson S., Rickne A. How Large Is the Swedish ‘Academic’ Sector Really? A Critical Analysis of the Use of Science and Technology Indicators. Research Policy, 2004, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1355–1372.
54. Kevles D. J. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1995.
55. Knowledge Society vs Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (eds S. Sörlin, H. Vessuri), London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
56. Luhmann N. Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Berlin, Suhrkamp, 1984.
57. Macdonald S. Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2015, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 264–279.
58. Martin B. R. The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘Impact Agenda’: Are We Creating a Frankenstein Monster? Research Evaluation, 2011, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 247–254.
59. Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths, New York, Public Affairs, 2015.
60. Medawar P. Plato’s Republic, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982.
61. Merton R. K. Nauka i sotsial’nyi poryadok [Science and the Social Order]. Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo [Personality. Culture. Society], 2000, vol. 2, iss. 2, pp. 151–168.
62. Merton R. K. Neprednamerennye posledstviya prednamerennogo sotsial’nogo deistviya [The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action]. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal [Sociological Journal], 2009, no. 2, pp. 15–17.
63. Merton R. K. Priorities in Scientific Discovery. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 286–324.
64. Merton R. K. Science and the Social Order. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 254–266.
65. Merton R. K. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England, Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press, 1970.
66. Merton R. K. The Normative Structure of Science. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 270–278.
67. Merton R. K. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociological Review, 1936, vol. 1. no. 6, pp. 894–904.
68. Mirowski P. Science-Mart. Privatizing American Science, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2011.
69. Mody C. Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2011.
70. Mody C. The Long Arm of Moore’s Law, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2016.
71. Muller J. Z. The Tyranny of Metrics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2018.
72. Münch R. Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence, Abingdon, Routledge, 2014.
73. Münch R. Understanding Modernity. Towards a New Perspective Going Beyond Durkheim and Weber, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011.
74. Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.
75. Östling J. Humboldt and the Modern German University. An Intellectual History, Lund, Lund University Press, 2018.
76. Pacchioni G. The Overproduction of Truth, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.
77. Parsons T. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, 1966.
78. Parsons T. The Social System, London, Tavistock, 1952.
79. Parsons T., Platt G. M. The American University, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1973.
80. Pestre D. Science, Political Power and the State. Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (eds J. Krige, D. Pestre), Abingdon, Routledge, 2003, pp. 61–76.
81. Pithan D. The Discursive Legitimation of New Ideas. Emergence and Diffusion of the Industrial Research Laboratory in the United States, 1870–1930. PhD thesis. Wuppertal University, Germany, 2019.
82. Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2009.
83. Popper K. Logika nauchnogo issledovaniya [Logik der Forschung], Moscow, Astrel’, 2010.
84. Power M. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.
85. Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science (ed. I. B. Cohen), New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1990.
86. Radder H. From Commodification to the Common Good Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019.
87. Radder H. The Commodification of Academic Research. Science and the Modern Universities, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2010.
88. Ravetz J. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Piscataway, Transaction Publishers, 1971.
89. Readings B. The University in Ruins, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996.
90. Readings B. Universitet v ruinakh [The University in Ruins], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2021.
91. Ridley M. How Innovation Works. And Why it Flourishes in Freedom, New York, Harper, 2020.
92. Roberts T., Shambrook J. Academic Excellence: A Commentary and Reflections on the Inherent Value of Peer Review. Journal of Research Administration, 2012, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 33–38.
93. Schluchter W. The Rise of Western Rationalism. Max Weber’s Developmental History, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992.
94. Somers M., Block F. From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets and Institutions Over 200 Years of Welfare Debate. American Sociological Review, 2005, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 260–287.
95. Spaapen J., Sivertsen G. Assessing Societal Impact of SSH in an Engaging World: Focus On Productive Interaction, Creative Pathways and Enhanced Visibility of SSH Research. Research Evaluation, 2020, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–3.
96. Stehr N. Knowledge Societies, London, SAGE, 1994.
97. Stiglitz J. E. Globalizatsiya: trevozhnye tendentsii [Globalization and Its Discontents], Moscow, Natsional’nyi obshchestvenno-nauchnyi fond, 2003.
98. The Social Survey in Historical Perspective (eds M. Bulmer, K. Bales, K. Kish Sklar), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
99. The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists (eds B. Wittrock, A. Elzinga), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1983.
100. Tourish D. Management Studies in Crisis. Fraud, Deception and Meaningless Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.
101. Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market. The Breakdown of Scientific Thought (eds S. Rider, Y. Hasselberg, A. Waluszewski), New York, Springer, 2012.
102. Välimaa J., Hoffman D. Knowledge Society Discourse and Higher Education. Higher Education, 2008, no. 56, pp. 265–285.
103. Watermeyer R. Competitive Accountability in Academic Life. The Struggle for Social Impact and Public Legitimacy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2019.
104. Weber M. Khozyaistvennaya etika mirovykh religii: opyty sravnitel’noi sotsiologii religii. Konfutsianstvo i daosizm [Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Vergleichende religionssoziologische Versuche. Konfuzianismus und Taoismus], Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Dal’, 2017.
105. Weber M. Protestantskaya etika i dukh kapitalizma [Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus]. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works], Moscow, Progress, 1990.
106. Weber M. Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions. From Max Weber (eds H. H. Gerth, C. W. Mills), Abingdon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 323–359.
107. Weingart P. Impact of Bibliometrics Upon the Science System: Inadvertent Consequences? Scientometrics, 2005, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 117–131.
108. Westwick P. J. The National Labs: Science in an American System 1947–1974, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2003.
109. Whitley R. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences. The Changing Governance of the Sciences (eds R. Whitley, J. Gläser), New York, Springer, 2007, pp. 3–27.
110. Whitley R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.
111. Zuckerman H. The Other Merton Thesis. Science in Context, 1989, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 239–267.
Review
For citations:
Hallonsten O. Stop Evaluating Science: A Historical-Sociological Argument. Versus. 2022;2(2):104-144. (In Russ.)
Views:
95
Email this article 