The multi-layered and multilevel use of bibliometric measures in Swedish universities: Isomorphism, translation and strategic choice
Forskningsoutput: Konferensbidrag › Konferenspaper, ej i proceeding/ej förlagsutgivet
This study provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the local use of bibliometric indicators at Swedish universities through a survey directed at 26 Swedish institutions of higher education and our theoretical focus is inspired by new institutionalism theories (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
Bibliometric measurement is currently applied in 24 of the 26 HEIs in our study. There is large variation in terms of what kind of bibliometric indicator being used for resource allocation. Generally, we can identify three main types of indicators: those counting number of publications, those based on citation frequency, and those making calculations based on a combination of citation and publication counts (Table 1).
As with the choice of publication or citation based indicators, we find a wide variation in terms of on which levels bibliometric indicators are used for distributing resources at different HEIs. Seven out of the 26 HEIs in our sample are use bibliometric indicators to allocate resources directly to individuals. The models used at Blekinge Institute of Technology and Luleå University of Technology are perhaps the most straightforward ones as they directly allocate resources—in the form of research time or travel money—based on articles published in journals indexed in Web of Science or rated at prestige level two in the Norwegian system.
Performance based allocation based on bibliometric indicators has become the norm in Swedish academia. From a viewpoint of ‘new institutionalism’ we could describe the current focus on bibliometric measurement at Swedish HEIs as a result of isomorphism. Still, even if many allocation models resemble each other we find that a range of different indicators is used on various levels.
Hence, it is evident that national systems are translated, negotiated and possible also contested on the local level. We also see clear evidence for strategic choices being made when indicators and systems are chosen. Finally we argue that in-depth and systematic knowledge about the actual use of bibliometrics across all levels of academia is pre-requisite for studying the effect of measurement. Further studies might, help us to understand how indicators on all levels, from university rankings to evaluation of individual researchers, reinforce, interact and contradict each other in the forming of a ‘metric’ culture in academia.
|Enheter & grupper|
Ämnesklassifikation (UKÄ) – OBLIGATORISK
|Status||Published - 2015|
|Peer review utförd||Ja|
|Evenemang||Research Organizations Under Scrutiny: the 20th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI) - Lugano|
Varaktighet: 2015 sep 3 → …
|Konferens||Research Organizations Under Scrutiny: the 20th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI)|
|Period||2015/09/03 → …|
Fredrik Åström & Björn Hammarfelt
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (RJ)
2015/01/01 → 2018/12/31