Abstract
The focus on excellence and quality assurance in the academy has spawned a significant increase in the use of bibliometric measures in performance assessments of individual researchers. This article investigates the organizational consequences of this development through a gender lens. Based on a qualitative case study of evaluation and selection practices at a Danish university, a number of potential gender biases related to the use of bibliometric performance measures are identified. By taking as default the research preferences, approaches and career paths of a succesful group of predominantly male scholars, evaluators using bibliometrics risk disadvantaging candidates diverging from the norm with implications for gender stratification. Despite these potential biases, bibliometric measures come to function as technologies supporting a managerial narrative of the gender-blind organization. They adhere to the prevailing ethos of the academic meritocracy by standardizing the criteria for organizational advancement and ensuring transparency and accountability in the selection process. While bibliometric tools in this sense may lead to the recruitment of scientists with a strong CV and track record, they may at the same time prevent many talented researchers diverging from the norm from being recognized and succeed as academics.
Highlights
As observed by Simmel (1950: 412; originally written in 1903), the economic rationalization of modern society ”has filled the days of so many with weighing, calculating with numerical determinations, with a reduction of qualitative values to quantitative ones”
Bibliometric indicators – modalities and potential gender consequences The emphasis on journal rankings and impact factors in the SSH, according to the interview material, is strongest in disciplines weighted in favour of quantitative approaches
As illustrated in the quote, the accreditation of knowledge through rankings and impact factors is attractive for SSH evaluators, because it offers seemingly objective tools for overcoming internal disagreements on what counts as quality
Summary
As observed by Simmel (1950: 412; originally written in 1903), the economic rationalization of modern society ”has filled the days of so many with weighing, calculating with numerical determinations, with a reduction of qualitative values to quantitative ones”. Bibliometric indicators – modalities and potential gender consequences The emphasis on journal rankings and impact factors in the SSH, according to the interview material, is strongest in disciplines weighted in favour of quantitative approaches (e.g. economics, business administration, political science) In these areas, the department heads frequently use terms such as ‘internationally recognized journals’, ‘top journals’, ‘highly ranked field journals’, ‘general field journals’, ‘mediocre journals’ and ‘unknown journals’ to make distinctions on the quality and prestige of applicants’ scholarly contributions. Journal ratings and impact factors, in this sense, endow evaluators with analytical tools to establish hierarchical relationships between scholarly publications; they at the same time contribute to form the content of knowledge production by changing how people make sense of their day-to-day activities, producing career obstacles for (women) researchers diverging from the prevailing approaches and research topics While such processes of commensuration risk advantaging an already successful group of predominantly men scholars, more research is needed to fully estimate their stratifying gender effects. The prevailing understandings of research potential, capabilities and scientific worth tend to be strongly intermingled with issues of past performance and research output, which may contribute to explaining why more female than male researchers continue to face challenges in obtaining permanent recruitment at Aarhus University
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
