Unable to resist: Researchers’ responses to research assessment in the Czech Republic

• Authors: Marcela Linkova
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Instituted in 2004, the Czech Republic research assessment has since changed on an annual basis. In this paper I examine how researchers in the Czech Republic negotiate research assessment. Using the concept of epistemic living spaces (Felt & Fochler, 2010; Felt, 2009), I first set in context the Czech research assessment system and second explore the micro-politics of resistance in which researchers engage in their daily conduct. Empirically, I draw on individual and group interviews carried out with Czech researchers in the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences, analyses of science policy documents including the Methodology for Evaluating Research, Development and Innovation Results, as well as public debates relating to research assessment, such as blogs and newspaper articles. The interviews were carried out between 2007 and 2010. Additional sources of data include participant observation at public events and seminars on the research and development system reform, research assessment and audit of the Czech system of research, development and innovation gathered between 2009 and 2011.

Keywords

EN

epistemic living spaces; research assessment; resistance

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Human Affairs
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 78-88

Dates

published

2014-01-01

online

2013-12-27

Contributors

author

Marcela Linkova

• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

References

• [1] Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2), 251–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508407086583[WoS][Crossref]
• [2] Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A reformer’s science. London: SAGE.
• [3] Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803[WoS][Crossref]
• [4] Cohen, L., McAuley, J., & Duberley, J. (2001). Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26(2), 145–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600202[Crossref]
• [5] Deem, R., Hylliard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: the changing management of UK universities (First., p. 245). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265909.001.0001[Crossref]
• [6] Felt, U. (Ed.). (2009). Knowing and living in academic research. Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context (p. 242). Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
• [7] Felt, U., & Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering epistemic living spaces: On the tacit governance effects of the public communication of science. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The Sciences’ Media Connection - Public Communication and its Repercussions. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 28 (pp. 133–154). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. [WoS][Crossref]
• [8] Gillies, D. (2008). How should research be organised? (p. 152). College Publications. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/How-Should-Research-Be-Organised/dp/1904987273
• [9] Godin, B. (2002). Outline for a history of science measurement. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(1), 3–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700101[Crossref]
• [10] Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55(9), 1051–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055009019[Crossref]
• [11] Karreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2009). Resisting resistance: Counter-resistance, consent and compliance in a consultancy firm. Human Relations, 62(8), 1115–1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726709334880[WoS][Crossref]
• [12] Lam, A. (2010). From “ivory tower traditionalists” to “entrepreneurial scientists”? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312709349963[Crossref][WoS]
• [13] Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity (p. 219). Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell Publishers.
• [14] Linkova, M., & Stockelova, T. (2012). Public accountability and the politicization of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment. Science and Public Policy, 39(5), 618–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs039[Crossref][WoS]
• [15] McCook, A. (2011). Researchers are punks. The Scientist. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/29523/title/Researchers-are-punks/#ixzz1E2G21DrL
• [16] Morris, N., & Rip, A. (2006). Scientists’ coping strategies in an evolving research system: The case of life scientists in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 253–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778957[Crossref]
• [17] Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025505528250[Crossref]
• [18] Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
• [19] Power, M. (2003). Evaluating the audit explosion. Law & Policy, 25(3), 185–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2003.00147.x[Crossref]
• [20] Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2001). (Un)willing to resist? The discursive production of local workplace opposition. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies, 7(1), 105–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10245280108523554[Crossref]
• [21] Prasad, P., & Prasad, A. (2000). Stretching the iron cage: The constitution and implications of routine workplace resistance. Organization Science, 11(4), 378–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.387.14597[Crossref]
• [22] Roa, T., Beggs, J., Williams, J., & Moller, H. (2009). New Zealand’s performance based research funding (PBRF) model undermines Maori research. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 233–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510587[WoS][Crossref]
• [23] Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400104[WoS][Crossref]
• [24] Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability. nthropological Theory, 8(3), 278–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1463499608093815[WoS][Crossref]
• [25] Shore, C. (2010). Beyond the multiversity: neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic university. ocial Anthropology, 18(1), 15–29.
• [26] Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1999). Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British higher education. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4), 557–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2661148[Crossref]
• [27] Smith, K. (2010). Research, policy and funding - academic treadmills and the squeeze on intellectual spaces. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(1), 176–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01307.x[WoS][Crossref]
• [28] Sparkes, A. C. (2007). Embodiment, academics, and the audit culture: A story seeking consideration. ualitative Research, 7(4), 521–550.
• [29] Stöckelová, T. (2009). Politická a morální ekonomie vědy. In T. Stöckelová (Ed.), Akademické poznávání, vykazování a podnikání. Etnografie měnící se českědy (pp. 37–71). Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.
• [30] Stöckelová, T. (2012). Nebezpečné známosti. O vztahu sociálních věd a společnosti (p. 110). Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.
• [31] Strathern, M. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability and the academy. London, New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203449721[Crossref]
• [32] Thompson, P., & Ackroyd, S. (1995). All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent trends in British Industrial Sociology. Sociology, 29(4), 615–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038595029004004[Crossref]
• [33] Townley, B. (1997). The Institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800204[Crossref]
• [34] Vláda České republiky. (2008). Reforma systému výzkumu, vyvoje a inovací v ČR. Česká republika. Retrieved from http://www.vyzkum.cz/FrontClanek.aspx?idsekce=495405
• [35] Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7[Crossref]
• [36] Wright, S. (n.d.). Knowledge that counts: Points systems and the governance of Danish universities. In D. Smith & A. Griffith (Eds.), Governance on the front line. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• [37] Ziman, J. (2002). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/s13374-014-0207-z