Evidence in Czech research evaluation policy: measured and contested

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11210%2F17%3A10368481" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11210/17:10368481 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14467432784664" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14467432784664</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14467432784664" target="_blank" >10.1332/174426415X14467432784664</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Evidence in Czech research evaluation policy: measured and contested

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The Czech research evaluation policy was rooted in an instrumental paradigm of policy process and evidence embodied in metrics-based cost-benefit logic. But this framework disintegrated when confronted with actual institutional interests. Based on the ethnography of university departments, this study shows how academics challenged the notion of evidence for evaluation. It is argued that research policy should be studied as an arena of conflicting group and individual interests, where policy process is regarded as a contested meaning-making process rather than a rational-technical one. It is demonstrated that the role of evidence in research evaluation policies is situational according to the knowledge regimes of the academic communities involved.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Evidence in Czech research evaluation policy: measured and contested

Popis výsledku anglicky

The Czech research evaluation policy was rooted in an instrumental paradigm of policy process and evidence embodied in metrics-based cost-benefit logic. But this framework disintegrated when confronted with actual institutional interests. Based on the ethnography of university departments, this study shows how academics challenged the notion of evidence for evaluation. It is argued that research policy should be studied as an arena of conflicting group and individual interests, where policy process is regarded as a contested meaning-making process rather than a rational-technical one. It is demonstrated that the role of evidence in research evaluation policies is situational according to the knowledge regimes of the academic communities involved.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50404 - Anthropology, ethnology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Evidence and Policy

ISSN

1744-2648

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

13

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

15

Strana od-do

81-95

Kód UT WoS článku

000394728600006

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—