Abstract
The present paper is aimed at highlighting the changing pathways of the knowledge production process in the Higher Education and University System. Particularly, special attention is given to the impact of historical turning points in our society, like the World War II, the capitalism, and the advent of globalization, on the re-organization of the University and research institutes according to the criteria and mechanisms of the market. Alongside the spreading of mass higher education, the issue of how defining excellence, relevance, and quality of research and teaching activities arise, as well as the issue of ranking scientific works, researchers, and journals. This has forced the introduction of quantitative indicators to evaluate the big amount of research outputs and, in parallel, fostered the creation of quality hierarchies to better orient experts in the research field. This revolutionary change of paradigm was supported by the loss of trust in the process of peer-review that paved the way for the emergence of the need of having alternative parameters to rank the scientific work of a researcher. The pro and cons of bibliometric indexes and peer-review procedures are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415(6873), 726–729.
Bensman, S. J. (2007). Garfield and the impact factor. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 93–155.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in Higher Education. Elsevier Science Regional Sales, 665 Avenue of the Americas, New York.
Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. ERIC, The World Bank.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Hoenig, B. (2017). Europe’s new scientific elite. Social mechanisms of science in the European research area. Routledge.
Meek, V. L., & Davies, D. (2009). Policy dynamics in higher education and research: Concepts and observations. Higher education, research and innovation: changing dynamics, 41.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Blackwell.
Pina, D. G., Barać, L., Buljan, I., Grimaldo, F., & Marušić, A. (2019). Effects of seniority, gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients. PLoS ONE, 14(2), e0212286.
Scaletti, A. (2010). Il controllo economico delle aziende dei sistemi sanitari regionali. G. Giappichelli.
Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72(2), 253–280.
Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 97(5), 261–275.
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Giani, L., Olivari, C. University and Higher Education: a Clockwork in Perpetual Motion. Hu Arenas (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00300-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00300-y