Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based

[Ian Rowlands]

Hi Peter

No, I disagree.  This is where the discussion starts.  In the world of
evidence-based policy, metricians hold the key.  Metrics form targets, targets
shape behaviour, behaviour determines outcomes.  The metrics - outcomes
relationship needs to be explored.  Whether we like it or not, this is our
responsibility, we are joined at the hip with the social responsibilities that
come with judging others.

Ian

Quoting Peter Ingwersen <PI at DB.DK>:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Dear Loet and Stevan et al. - I think we should stop this discussion now,
> prior to too many mails arriving into our boxes for no use. Please convey
> your discussion between you two. Loet is right in that the entire issue is
> political AND that the metrics we possess are not strong enough to
> substitute human assessemnts, e.g., of how the research is actually
> performed in the labs (good Lab. practice, etc.). Stevan might like the
> metrics, including fancy inlink analyses, not mentioned thus far, but:
> actually, the correlations referred to (published) cover only the top-ranked
> (and low-ranked) institutions in the RAE rankings - not really
> distinguishing between the large portion of mid-positioned research
> institutions in the UK. Hence, all this talk of substitution by metrics is
> beneficial/fair to some - not to the entire body of research. My best
> regards - Peter Ingwersen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loet Leydesdorff
> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> Sent: 28-03-06 20:56
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Future UK RAEs to be Metrics-Based
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> > Bref: Scrapping the non-metric white-elephant in favour of
> > existing metrics is the policy part; improving on existing
> > metrics is the research part.
>
> Thus, you wish to make the RAE completely technocratic, while we know
> that
> we don't have reliable models for giving this strong type of policy
> advice.
> If I translate this for the Netherlands--having a dual system relying
> more
> on peer review than the UK--I can see the advantages, but also the
> disadvantages. For one, it might give my unit more money!
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
> Loet
> ________________________________
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681;
> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.