Darbai ir dienos / Deeds and Days 2020, nr. 73

Permanent URI for this collection

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 10
  • Publication
    Redesigning research evaluation practices for the social sciences and humanities: perspectives from the European network for research evaluation in the social sciences and humanities (ENRESSH)
    [Humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslinių tyrimų vertinimo pertvarka: ENRESSH (Europos humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų vertinimo tinklo) požiūris]
    research article
    Jong, Stefan de
    ;
    Balaban, Corina
    ;
    Holm, Jon
    ;
    Spaapen, Jack
    Darbai ir dienos, 2020, nr. 73, p. 17-35
    This paper presents the findings of the ENRESSH network with relevance to academic and policy communities. As a recently completed COST action running between April 2016 and April 2020, ENRESSH consists of over 150 researchers and policy makers from 40 countries across Europe and beyond. Through its ongoing research and networking, ENRESSH has worked towards two goals: 1) to enhance the visibility of research in the social sciences and humanities (SSH), as well as its potential to address questions around major societal challenges and 2) to develop comprehensive evaluation methods that better fit how researchers in the SSH communicate. In response to the first goal, ENRESSH proposes that, in order to enhance the visibility of the SSH, impact assessments need to be more inclusive, in particular towards the values and practices of the SSH. This could be achieved by focusing on the interaction processes between researchers and stakeholders, by acknowledging different types of impact and impact pathways, and by improving the understanding of impact by SSH researchers. In response to the second goal of improving evaluation methods, ENRESSH recommends that (extended) peer review constitutes the basis for evaluation, given that it is more suitable to meet the specific cognitive, and often context-dependent, challenges of SSH research. While peer review may continue to be supported by quantitative measurements, these need to be aligned with the types of output and communication patterns prevalent in the SSH. Finally, in order to implement our research-based vision, the ENRESSH community advocates a closer a collaboration between SSH researchers, policy makers and societal stakeholders.
      21
  • Publication
    A shared European research space for the social sciences and humanities? English language publishing and the use of European journals
    [Bendra Europos mokslo erdvė humanitariniams ir socialiniams mokslams? Publikacijos anglų kalba ir Europos žurnalai]
    research article
    Eykens, Joshua
    ;
    Guns, Raf
    ;
    Puuska, Hanna-Mari
    ;
    Pölönen, Janne
    ;
    Engels, Tim C. E.
    Darbai ir dienos, 2020, nr. 73, p. 37-51
    This study explores whether there exists a European space of social sciences and humanities (SSH) scholarship in terms of journal use by focusing on journals that explicitly position themselves as Europe-oriented or internationally oriented. We gauge the prevalence of publications in Europe-oriented journals and to what extent the same scholarly journals are used in the SSH across different European countries. We analyze bibliographic metadata of 8,101 SSH journal articles collected from five research-intensive universities in Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Norway, and Spain for the period 2014–2015. We compare the results overall as well as at the level of SSH disciplines to find out to what extent a shared European journal space is emerging between the national and the international level. Differences between broad fields and individual disciplines as well as the institutions are discussed. With regard to journal sharing, the results are partially negative in the sense that we did not find extensive shared journal spaces. In this limited shared journal space however, Europe-oriented journals are of considerable importance. We include reflections on what the value of comprehensive bibliographic data would be for research into the European SSH.
      13
  • Publication
    The problem of evidence in SSH research evaluation
    [Įrodymų problema, kylanti vertinant HSM tyrimus]
    research article
    Ma, Li
    Darbai ir dienos, 2020, nr. 73, p. 53-63
    This paper poses questions about the epistemology of research evaluation by examining the different kinds of evidence and by explicating the epistemological assumptions of using non-intersubjective evaluation criteria in research evaluation. It is argued that the over-emphasis on the wrong kinds of evidence can lead to erroneous assumptions about people and disciplines which in turn lead to undesirable changes in research practices and knowledge production. It is also argued that some issues in SSH research evaluation are rooted in epistemological assumptions that have led to the use of methodologies deprived of intersubjective understanding.
      19
  • Publication
    Different worlds? Finding constructive complementarity between academic research and societal impact activities
    [Skirtingi pasauliai? Kaip surasti abipusę naudą tarp mokslinių tyrimų ir socialiniam poveikiui skirtos veiklos?]
    research article
    Girkontaitė, Agnė
    ;
    Benneworth, Paul
    ;
    Muhonen, Reetta
    Darbai ir dienos, 2020, nr. 73, p. 65-80
    There is growing policy interest in stimulating academic researchers to increase their engagement with societal partners. Understanding of research impact is typically framed by conceptions derived from natural and technological fields. In this article, we scrutinize how prior studies discuss the societal impact of social sciences and humanities (SSH) research. To address the dynamics of academic researchers’ engagement with societal partners, we conducted a literature review, asking three questions about (a) motives and ways of engagement, (b) dilemmas and struggles experienced, and (c) strategies to deal with these struggles. Our study reveals that many SSH researchers tend to engage with various societal partners in extra-academic fields, but they experience tensions both on the practical level of limited resources and time and because of idealistic orientations of scientific work that sometimes are incommensurable with societal needs. While researchers might be motivated to engage with societal partners, it is usually means-driven rationality, but ends-driven rationality is for research in itself. Solution is to create conditions where researchers would have intrinsic motivation for engagement when complementarity between research and societal impact activities would be established. On that basis we propose that engagement should be treated as a quality of good research and that creating new academic identities should reflect the values of research communities where engagement is essential.
      20