Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

  • Julian Hamann
  • Stefan Beljean
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_295-1

Synonyms

Definition

Academic evaluation is a social process taking place in different arenas in which values, worths, virtues, or meanings are produced, diffused, assessed, legitimated, or institutionalized with respect to academic products and their producers.

Introduction

The world of academia is permeated with evaluations. Academic processes of evaluation play a central role in both the production and reception of scholarly work as well as for the status of academic entities like scholars, departments, or universities. Some of these evaluations are largely informal, taking place, for example, in small-group interactions. But there is also a wide array of evaluations in academia that are fairly formalized, such as letters of recommendation and peer reviews of journal manuscripts. Rankings of universities according to research performance are among the most standardized forms of evaluation.

Evaluation has a central place in academia because...

Keywords

Analytical Perspective Disciplinary Difference Pragmatist Perspective Fair Judgment Academic Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Angermuller, Johannes. 2013. How to become an academic philosopher. Academic discourse as multileveled positioning practice. Sociología Histórica 2013: 263–289.Google Scholar
  2. Angermuller, Johannes. 2015. The moment of theory. The rise and decline of structuralism in France and beyond. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. Scott. 1997. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baert, Patrick. 2012. Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 42: 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman, Charles. 1981. What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review: Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics 63: 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. van den Brink, Marieke, and Yvonne Benschop. 2012. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization 19: 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrows, Roger. 2012. Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review 60: 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, Stephen. 1983. The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 89: 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, Randall. 2000. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, Harry H., and Robert Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, Francis L., and Gil-Sung Park. 2016. Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education 72: 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Combes, Pierre-Philippe, Laurent Linnemer, and Michael Visser. 2008. Publish or peer-rich? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors. Labour Economics 15: 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, and Mike Reed. 2008. Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Derrick, Gemma E., and Gabrielle N. Samuel. 2016. The evaluation scale: Exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva 54: 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. East, John W. 2011. The scholarly book review in the humanities. An academic cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43: 52–67.Google Scholar
  20. Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2016. Engines of anxiety. Rankings, reputation, and accountability in a quantified world. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, Eliza D., Charles J. Gomez, and Daniel A. McFarland. 2016. Measuring paradigmaticness of disciplines using text. Sociological Science 2016: 757–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. New York: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  23. Fochler, Maximilian, Ulrike Felt, and Ruth Müller. 2016. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 54: 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The making of an American philosopher. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont, and Grégoire Mallard. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review 69: 190–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamann, Julian. 2016a. ‘Let us salute one of our kind’. How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. Poetics 56: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamann, Julian. 2016b. The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education 72: 761–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammarfelt, Björn. 2014. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 101: 1419–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hargens, Lowell L. 1988. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53: 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2014. Rankings and the global reputation race. New Directions for Higher Education 2014: 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hesselmann, Felicitas, Verena Graf, Marion Schmidt, and Martin Reinhart. 2016. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology online first: 1–32.Google Scholar
  33. Hirschauer, Stefan. 2010. Editorial judgements: A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science 40: 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lamont, Michèle. 1987. How to become a dominant French philosopher: The case of Jacques Derrida. The American Journal of Sociology 93: 584–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lamont, Michèle, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2011. Comparing customary rules of fairness: Evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels. In Social knowledge in the making, ed. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 209–232. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lamont, Michèle, Grégoire Mallard, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2006. Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation 15: 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Latour, Bruno. 1988. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lorenz, Chris. 2012. If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry 38: 599–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macfarlane, Bruce, and Roy Y. Chan. 2014. The last judgement: Exploring intellectual leadership in higher education through academic obituaries. Studies in Higher Education 39: 294–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology, and Human Values 34: 573–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin, Ben R. 2011. The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation 20: 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Meruane, Omar Sabaj, Carlos Gonzáles Vergara, and Álvaro Pina-Stranger. 2016. What we still don’t know about peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47: 180–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moed, Henk F., Marc Luwel, and Anton J. Nederhof. 2002. Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends 50: 498–520.Google Scholar
  52. Musselin, Christine. 2009. The market for academics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Measuring excellence in social sciences and humanities: Limitations and opportunities. In Global university rankings. Challenges for European higher education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 147–165. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nederhof, Anton J. 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics 66: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicolaisen, Jeppe. 2002. The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation 11: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ochsner, Michael, Sven E. Hug, and Hans-Dieter Daniel, eds. 2016. Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  57. Peterson, David. 2015. All that is solid. Bench-building at the frontiers of two experimental sciences. American Sociological Review 80: 1201–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  59. Posselt, Julie R. 2015. Disciplinary logics in doctoral admissions: Understanding patterns of faculty evaluation. The Journal of Higher Education 86: 807–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Posselt, Julie R. 2016. Inside graduate admissions. Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping. Harvard: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reinhart, Martin. 2009. Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine: Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics 81: 789–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. de Rijcke, Sarah, Paul Wouters, Alex D. Rushforth, Thomas P. Franssen, and Björn Hammarfelt. 2015. Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – A literature review. Research Evaluation 25: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Riley, Lawrence E., and Elmer A. Spreitzer. 1970. Book reviewing in the social sciences. The American Sociologist 5: 358–363.Google Scholar
  64. Roumbanis, Lambros. 2016. Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups. Social Studies of Science, online first.Google Scholar
  65. Sandström, Ulf, and Martin Hällsten. 2008. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sauder, Michael, and Wendy N. Espeland. 2009. The Discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review 74: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Siler, Kyle, and David Strang. 2016. Peer review and scholarly originality. Let 1,000 flowers bloom, but don’t step on any. Science, Technology, and Human Values 42: 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, Laurence D., Lisa A. Best, Alan D. Stubbs, John Johnston, and Andrea B. Archibald. 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science 30: 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strang, David, and Kyle Siler. 2015. Revising as reframing. Original submissions versus published papers in administrative science quarterly, 2005 to 2009. Sociological Theory 33: 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26: 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Teplitskiy, Misha. 2016. Frame search and re-search: How quantitative sociological articles change during peer review. The American Sociologist 47: 264–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tsay, Angela, Michèle Lamont, Andrew Abbott, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2003. From character to intellect: Changing conceptions of merit in the social sciences and humanities, 1951–1971. Poetics 2003: 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitley, Richard D. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Zuckerman, Ezra W. 2012. Construction, concentration, and (dis)continuities in social valuations. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forum Internationale WissenschaftUniversität BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of SociologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA