Gradgrinding the Social Sciences: The Politics of Metrics of Political Science
Gradgrinding the Social Sciences: The Politics of Metrics of Political Science
复制标题
社会科学研究生：政治学计量的政治学
DOI：
10.1111/j.1478-9299.2008.00172.x
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
C. Donovan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Donovan
本文采用了一种解释性的方法，并根据巴特勒和麦卡利斯特以及姆克林等人对这次研讨会的贡献，认为研究“质量”的衡量标准是社会构建的，因此与同行评审一样“主观”。因此，它拒绝使用独立的指标作为“客观”的基础，为资金分配提供信息。相反，“质量”评估的最佳方法是以小组为基础的工作，由专家根据一系列对学科敏感的衡量标准和对出版物的同行评审作出判断。本文认为，政治学的度量政治学掩盖了对社会科学知识基础的兴趣，因此度量和同行评议的争议是英国政治科学家相互冲突的认识论偏好的隐喻。也有人认为，指标为主导的评估科目政治科学“Gradgrinding”在两个方面：政治科学部门的金额小于其部分的总和，和审计文化剥夺其人文学科。
This article employs an interpretive approach, and in the light of contributions to this symposium by Butler and McAllister, and McLean et al., holds that metrics of research ‘quality’ are socially constructed and hence are as ‘subjective’ as peer review. Thus it rejects the use of stand-alone metrics as an ‘objective’ basis to inform funding allocations. Rather, the optimum method of ‘quality’ assessment is a panel-based exercise with expert judgement informed by a range of discipline-sensitive metrics and peer review of publications. The article maintains that the politics of metrics of political science conceals interests about the foundations of social scientific knowledge, and so the dispute over metrics and peer review is a metaphor for the conflicting epistemological preferences of UK political scientists. It is also argued that metrics-led assessment subjects political science to ‘Gradgrinding’ on two fronts: that political science departments amount to less than the sum of their parts, and the audit culture strips the discipline of its humanism.