Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Are evaluative bibliometrics neoliberal? A historical and theoretical problematization.

Hammarfelt, Björn and Hallonsten, Olof LU (2023) In Social Science Information 61(4).
Abstract
In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by ‘neoliberal’ ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific... (More)
In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by ‘neoliberal’ ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific design, we discuss the existence or non-existence of neoliberal motivations and rationales. Overall, we find that a relatively homogeneous academic landscape, with a high degree of centralization and government steering, appears to be a common feature for countries implementing national evaluation systems relying on bibliometrics. Such characteristics, we argue, may not be inductively understood as neoliberal but as indications of national states displaying strong political steering of its research system. Consequently, if used without further clarification, ‘neoliberalism’ is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful when analyzing the development of research evaluation and bibliometric measures in the past half a century. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Social Science Information
volume
61
issue
4
publisher
SAGE Publications
external identifiers
  • scopus:85149945411
ISSN
0539-0184
DOI
10.1177/05390184231158195
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
669803d3-ff6f-447a-b4eb-6b25dbeaa8db
date added to LUP
2023-01-11 11:09:52
date last changed
2024-01-18 20:51:23
@article{669803d3-ff6f-447a-b4eb-6b25dbeaa8db,
  abstract     = {{In this article, we problematize the notion that the continuously growing use of bibliometric evaluation can be effectively explained by ‘neoliberal’ ideology. A prerequisite for our analysis is an understanding of neoliberalism as both denoting a more limited set of concrete principles for the organization of society (the narrow interpretation) or as a hegemonic ideology (the broad interpretation). This conceptual framework, as well as brief history of evaluative bibliometrics, provides an analytical framing for our approach, in which four national research evaluation systems are compared: Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. On basis of an analysis of the rationales for implementing these systems, as well as their specific design, we discuss the existence or non-existence of neoliberal motivations and rationales. Overall, we find that a relatively homogeneous academic landscape, with a high degree of centralization and government steering, appears to be a common feature for countries implementing national evaluation systems relying on bibliometrics. Such characteristics, we argue, may not be inductively understood as neoliberal but as indications of national states displaying strong political steering of its research system. Consequently, if used without further clarification, ‘neoliberalism’ is a concept too broad and diluted to be useful when analyzing the development of research evaluation and bibliometric measures in the past half a century.}},
  author       = {{Hammarfelt, Björn and Hallonsten, Olof}},
  issn         = {{0539-0184}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{4}},
  publisher    = {{SAGE Publications}},
  series       = {{Social Science Information}},
  title        = {{Are evaluative bibliometrics neoliberal? A historical and theoretical problematization.}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/05390184231158195}},
  doi          = {{10.1177/05390184231158195}},
  volume       = {{61}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}