Abstract
This study investigates the development, implementation, and establishment of evaluation metrics within the mathematics research community in Chile, a discipline where the use of bibliometric indicators for quality assessment has been highly controversial. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study conducted focus groups with mathematicians at different stages of their academic careers and analyzed the ANID Mathematics Studies Group's method for assessing researcher productivity. The findings reveal that the evaluation metrics in mathematics remain in a state of “magmatic flow,” fluid and solid, constantly changing yet stable enough to articulate multiple social worlds. The study highlights the challenges faced in three closely linked spheres: mathematical research, science and higher education governance, and organizational management. The functioning of this metrics assemblage as boundary infrastructure, which meets the information needs of diverse social worlds while maintaining the integrity of the interests involved, is a temporal achievement of situated practices that provide continuous adjustment and stabilization. The study suggests that academic metric assemblages are made unstable through practical politics involving controversies and qualitative deliberation. Concurrently, they achieve stability through translation and blackboxing practices.
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.
