Advertisement

Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

The impact of SSCI and SCI on Taiwan’s academy: an outcry for fair play

  • Chuing Prudence ChouEmail author
  • Hsiao Fang Lin
  • Yun-ju Chiu
Article

Abstract

The increasing importance of the competition in global university ranking has resulted in a paradigm shift in academic governance in East Asia. Many governments have introduced different strategies for benchmarking their leading universities to facilitate global competitiveness and international visibility. A major trend in the changing university governance is the emergence of a regulatory evaluation scheme for faculty research productivity, reflected by the striking features of the recent changing academic profile of publication norms and forms that go beyond the territories of nation-states in the East and West. With the expansion of the Taiwanese higher education system in the last two decades, the maintenance of quality to meet the requirements for international competitiveness has become a key concern for policy makers. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education has introduced a series of university governance policies to enhance academic excellence in universities and established a formal university evaluation policy to improve the competitiveness and international visibility of Taiwanese universities. In so doing, the government has legalized a clear link between evaluation results and public funding allocation. Research performance is assessed in terms of the number of articles published in journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and in terms of citation rates and associated factors. Therefore, evaluation has taken on a highly quantitative dimension. Despite the efforts of concerned parties to encourage academic excellence, the abovementioned quantitative evaluation indicators have resulted in bitter complaints from the humanities and social sciences, whose research accomplishments are devalued and ignored by the current quantitative indicators. In this paper, the authors describe the recent petition for collective action initiated by university faculty to protest the privileging of SSCI and SCI publications as critical indicators for academic performance regardless of faculty discipline and specialization. The article concludes its argument with a group petition calling for more diverse and reliable indicators in recognizing the research of different natures and disciplines while creating culturally responsive evaluation criteria for social sciences and humanities in the Taiwanese academe. The article not only sheds light on academic evaluation literature, especially on the uncertain paradox of globalization and market economy, but also proposes alternatives to the evaluation system for humanities and social sciences in higher education.

Keywords

Academic evaluation University ranking SSCI Globalization Neo-liberalism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Prof. Tsung Chi and Ms. Pei-lun Lee in translation.

References

  1. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3–25.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann, E. G. (2001). Developing comparative bibliometric indicators for evaluating the research performance of four academic nutrition departments, 1992–1996: An exploratory study. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
  3. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté G., Larivire, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, K., & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11 (September). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html.
  5. Chang, K. W., & Ho, M. S. (2007). Half-hearted neoliberal reform: Analyzing Taiwan’s college tuition policy and controversy. Education and Social Studies, 12, 73–112.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, D. F., Wu, C. T. & Ching, G. S. (2009). An evaluation of the dynamics of the plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 47–57.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, K. S., & Qian, Y. X. (2004). Academic production under the neo-liberalism globalization (in Chinese). Paper presented at the reflecting on Taiwan’s higher education academic evaluation conference. International Plenary Hall, National Library, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  8. Chou, C. P. (2008). The impact of neo-liberalism on Taiwanese higher education. The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, 9, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chou, C. P., & Ching, G. S. (2012). Taiwan education at the crossroad: When globalization meets localization. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Cruz, I. (2007). Challenging ISI Thomson scientifics’ journal citation reports: Deconstructing “objective,” “impact,” and “global.” Vancouver, Canada: PKP Scholarly Publishing. Retrieved from http://scholarlypublishing.blogspot.com.
  11. Dale, R. (2001). Constructing a long spoon for comparative education: Charting the career of the New Zealand model. Comparative Education, 37(4), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutta, S., & Mia, I. (2010). Global information technology report 2009–2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum and INSEAD.Google Scholar
  13. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garfield, E. (1994a). The concept of citation indexing: A unique and innovative tool for navigating the research literature. New York: Thomson Reuter. Retrieved from http://scientific.thomson.com.
  15. Garfield, E. (1994b). Linking literatures: An intriguing use of the citation index. New York: Thomson Reuter. Retrieved from http://scientific.thomson.com.
  16. Gingrasb, (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neo-liberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463.Google Scholar
  18. Hou, Y. C. (2012). Impact of excellence programs on Taiwan higher education in terms of quality assurance and academic excellence, examining the conflicting role of Taiwan’s accrediting agencies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 77–88.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, H. M. (2004). SSCI, TSSCI and Taiwan social science evaluation system (In Chinese). Paper presented at the reflecting on Taiwan’s higher education academic evaluation conference, International Plenary Hall, National Library, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  20. Hwang, K. K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations. NY: Springer SBM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IREG. (2010). The Academic rankings: From popularity to reliability and relevance. Retrieved from http://www.ireg-observatory.org/pdf/abstracts_and_speakers.pdf.
  22. Kokko, H., & Sutherland, W. J. (1999). What do impact factors tell us? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(10), 382–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lai, D. M. (2004). Quantitative indexes are not the panacea of academic evaluation (In Chinese). Paper presented at the reflecting on Taiwan’s higher education academic evaluation conference, International Plenary Hall, National Library, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  24. Lawani, S. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1983). Validity of citation criteria for assessing the influence of scientific publications: New evidence with peer assessment. Journal of the American society for information science, 34(1), 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MOE. (2011). Summary of education at all levels in SY 2011. Retrieved from http://english.moe.gov.tw/public/Attachment/271115114171.doc.
  26. Mok, K. H. (2000). Reflecting globalization effects on local policy: Higher education reform in Taiwan. Journal of Education Policy, 15(6), 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mok, K. H. (2003). Globalization and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mok, K. H., & Tan, J. (2004). Globalization and marketization in education: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.ireg-observatory.org/pdf/abstracts_and_speakers.pdf.
  29. Paasi, A. (2005). Globalization, academic capitalism, and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37(5), 769–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmquist, R. A. (2001). Bibliometrics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin. Retrieved from http://www.gslis.utexas.edu.
  31. SCImago. (2007). SJR-SCImago journal and country rank. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  32. Shin, J. C. & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  33. Snow, C. P. (1959). The rede lecture. Retrieved from http://s-f-walker.org.uk.
  34. Thomson, R. (2008). Web of science. New York: Thomson Reuter. Retrieved from http://scientific.thomson.com/products/wos/.
  35. Thomson, R. (2010). ISI web of knowledge. New York: Thomson Reuter. Retrieved from http://www.isiwebofknowledge.com/.
  36. Williams, R., & Dyke, N. V. (2004). The international standing of Australian Universities. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.melbourneinstitute.com.
  37. Yang, S. K. (2001). Dilemmas of education reform in Taiwan: Internationalization or localization? Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the comparative and international education society, March 13–17, 2001, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Ye, Q. Z. (2004). The lack of the sense of social practice: The myth of criterion-based evaluation (In Chinese). Paper presented at the reflecting on Taiwan’s higher education academic evaluation conference, International Plenary Hall, National Library, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  39. Yu, C. L. (2010). A statement on SSCI. Taipei: National Cheng Chi University, forum of public administration.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chuing Prudence Chou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hsiao Fang Lin
    • 2
  • Yun-ju Chiu
    • 3
  1. 1.National Cheng Chi UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Ming Dao UniversityChanghuaTaiwan
  3. 3.Chang Gung UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations