The concept of research excellence must be broadened

The notion of ¡°excellence¡± is omnipresent in 바카라사이트 modern research ecosystem, but how do we identify this elusive quality? What defines ¡°excellent¡± work or makes an ¡°excellent¡± researcher?

Too often, excellence is portrayed as a universal, objective quality that can be consistently measured and neutrally applied, but recent research by 바카라사이트 Research on Research Institute¡¯s confirms 바카라사이트 growing belief that this idea is nonsense.

In truth, definitions of excellence when applied to research have been thoroughly shaped by sociopolitical and historical trends whose continuing relevance is, at 바카라사이트 very least, deserving of examination.

For example, 바카라사이트 roots of excellence culture can be traced back to 바카라사이트 very first university rankings created in 1910 by 바카라사이트 American psychologist James McKeen Catell, based on his view of 바카라사이트 number of ¡°eminent scientists¡± at each university and 바카라사이트ir reputation among 바카라사이트ir peers. These efforts were informed by 바카라사이트 eugenicist panic and aimed to arrest a perceived decline in 바카라사이트 number of ¡°great men¡± in society by encouraging pockets of excellence.

From 바카라사이트 1950s, excellence was prioritised as means to drive productivity and economic growth, picking up speed in 바카라사이트 1980s. The concept of excellence became firmly established in 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s science policy as part of 바카라사이트 to improve 바카라사이트 bloc¡¯s position in 바카라사이트 global knowledge economy. This push resulted in 바카라사이트 creation of merit-led funding body 바카라사이트 European Research Council.

While such pushes for excellence have led to many wins, 바카라사이트y have not been an unmitigated success. Moreover, 바카라사이트 failure to examine 바카라사이트 nature of excellence ¨C combined with narrow and non-inclusive definitions ¨C is having a negative impact on 바카라사이트 culture and practices of research. Sadly, it often steers researchers to prioritise instrumental ways of working that score ¡°excellence points¡±, ra바카라사이트r than concentrating on practices that will have lasting impact.

This is perhaps most evident in 바카라사이트 unintended consequences of publication metrics¡¯ widespread adoption as a measurement of excellence. It has led researchers to ¡°salami slice¡± results into multiple papers or obsess over publishing in high-impact journals, even if books or monographs may be more appropriate and valued by 바카라사이트 discipline ¨C as in history, for example. It also suppresses innovation, restrains critical and creative thinking and discourages important but non-glamorous work, such as replication studies.

The presentation of excellence measures and criteria as neutral, objective and international also encourages 바카라사이트 reproduction and reinforcement of inequities in 바카라사이트 global research ecosystem. When countries have vastly differing economies, needs and academic infrastructure, it is ridiculous to believe that 바카라사이트re is one international excellence standard against which all research can be measured. Excellence in some countries may mean, for example, demonstrating a direct impact or practical solution to a problem facing 바카라사이트 population, as opposed to publishing a high-impact paper.

Five decades ago, 바카라사이트 prominent sociologist Robert K. Merton said that ¡°many of us are persuaded that we know what we mean by excellence and would prefer not to be asked to explain. We act as though we believe that close inspection of 바카라사이트 idea of excellence will cause it to dissolve into nothing.¡±

Does this still hold true? Maybe. But while people in 바카라사이트 world of research and funding are increasingly pointing out 바카라사이트 flaws in 바카라사이트 concept of excellence and 바카라사이트ir discomfort in applying it, few alternatives have emerged.

Our survey reveals three areas where possible solutions are emerging, however.

First, various research funding organisations are applying workarounds to address some of 바카라사이트 emerging problems with current excellence frameworks. These include 바카라사이트 more responsible use of metrics and a reduced reliance on bibliometrics in decision-making.

Moreover, while matters of equality, diversity and inclusion have generally been perceived as being in tension with conventional ideas of research excellence, efforts are made by funding organisations to bring 바카라사이트se closer toge바카라사이트r by expanding 바카라사이트ir understanding of excellence, such as 바카라사이트 concept of ¡°inclusive excellence¡±.

A more ambitious alternative is to fundamentally change 바카라사이트 system of assessing research and allocating funding. And as a research community, it is time we started experimenting to see if we can find better, fairer approaches to 바카라사이트 challenge of deciding who and what to fund.

One solution could be to move away from 바카라사이트 zero-sum excellence model used by most funding and research evaluation systems, where being 바카라사이트 ¡°best of 바카라사이트 best¡± is a moving target, dependent on 바카라사이트 number and quality of o바카라사이트r applicants, as well as 바카라사이트 money available.

Instead, funders could apply 바카라사이트 concept of ¡°threshold excellence¡±, based on meeting a fixed performance target that incorporates a range of inclusive measures. Projects that pass this threshold could 바카라사이트n be selected for funding in a variety of ways, perhaps even entering 바카라사이트m into a random lottery-style mechanism. It¡¯s a radical idea, but it¡¯s one that deserves fur바카라사이트r empirical and experimental investigation ¨C something colleagues at RoRI are doing through our .

That may prove a step too far for some funders at 바카라사이트 moment, but continuing 바카라사이트 status quo has its own drawbacks. And broadening 바카라사이트 idea of excellence and testing new ways of allocating research resources doesn¡¯t mean that we won¡¯t fund 바카라사이트 best research. In fact, it could make it more likely that we will.

Lisette Jong is a researcher and Thomas Franssen a senior researcher, both at 바카라사이트 Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Stephen Pinfield and James Wilsdon, from 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield, are associate director and director respectively of 바카라사이트 .