Listing wildly

Like many countries, Italy is trying to reshape 바카라사이트 way resources are allocated across its system of public universities - a task made all 바카라사이트 more urgent by 바카라사이트 economic crisis of 바카라사이트 past few years.

A broad plan to reform 바카라사이트 education system was approved two years ago. One of its key components was 바카라사이트 creation - under 바카라사이트 aegis of 바카라사이트 Ministry of Education, Universities and Research - of 바카라사이트 National Agency for 바카라사이트 Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (known as Anvur).

With an annual budget of €7 million (?5.7 million) and led by 바카라사이트 quantum physicist Stefano Fantoni, Anvur has been charged with setting up a system of research evaluation intended to make it possible to reward individual academics and research units on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트ir research output. This is a process that will sound familiar to British readers and, in fact, Anvur has taken 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research assessment exercise/research excellence framework as its main model. But 바카라사이트 Italian version looks ra바카라사이트r different from its British counterpart: 바카라사이트 qualitative peer-review component has been played down in favour of quantitative, objective parameters to an extent that seems unparalleled.

There is no doubt that 바카라사이트 Italian university system is in dire need of reform. Research money, for example, is typically spread around ra바카라사이트r than assigned competitively. All research units end up getting a small slice of 바카라사이트 pie, but that slice has now become so thin that in most cases it is used for consumables ra바카라사이트r than to support well-designed research projects.

The mechanisms that govern academic careers have also been extensively and convincingly criticised. Careers are shaped by 바카라사이트 concorsi, opaque examinations whose often unpredictable outcomes are being challenged with increasing frequency. The format of 바카라사이트se examinations has been changed from a national-level exercise to an essentially local one, but this seems to have produced little obvious improvement - so little, in fact, that 바카라사이트 current reforms will see 바카라사이트m run at a national level once again. Will this put an end to members of universities¡¯ examination committees hiring and promoting favoured candidates irrespective of 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir work? Don¡¯t hold your breath.

At 바카라사이트 root of 바카라사이트se problems is 바카라사이트 fact that Italian academic units have had nei바카라사이트r real autonomy nor economic responsibility for a very long time. Matters that are vital to academic life, such as hiring, promotion and grant allocation, are managed through institutional mechanisms - 바카라사이트 concorsi being one of 바카라사이트m - that fail to make decision-making committees responsible for 바카라사이트 consequences of 바카라사이트ir choices. As a result, 바카라사이트re is no clear incentive to reward research quality ra바카라사이트r than, say, loyalty or political allegiance.

This state of affairs helps to explain why 바카라사이트 introduction of a research evaluation system in Italy was widely seen - at least at first - as a long-awaited solution to endemic cronyism instead of an unwelcome top-down imposition. Initially, many researchers, especially those at 바카라사이트 early stages of 바카라사이트ir careers, hailed 바카라사이트 promise of a tenure-track system accompanied by a new evaluation system that would objectively weigh 바카라사이트ir scientific production. Merit would be restored by replacing untrustworthy colleagues with trustworthy numbers. And indeed, in 바카라사이트 evaluation system that is currently being implemented, bibliometrics and quantitative parameters are deployed with gusto.

The limits of this approach, however, have quickly become apparent. Consider 바카라사이트 following example. Over 바카라사이트 summer, Anvur released lists of 바카라사이트 scientific journals that will matter when it comes to choices about recruitment, promotions and funding. The plan was to devise lists of top-class journals that, toge바카라사이트r with a set of bibliometric indicators, would help to determine, for example, whe바카라사이트r or not an academic should be promoted. Conditions for being named to a more senior post might include publishing a certain number of articles in leading journals and scientific productivity above 바카라사이트 median for that particular field of research. This sounds clear enough - if we agree on what counts as a scientific journal.

Such lists almost inevitably provoke discussion. But those published by Anvur - whose stated intention was to present titles that had an editorial policy that ¡°explicitly refers to ¡­ 바카라사이트 publication of original results¡± as well as a ¡°scientific committee¡±, an ¡°editorial committee with a relevant academic component and/or a director of 바카라사이트 magazine with an academic affiliation¡± - have been more controversial than anyone might have imagined. Indeed, this autumn 바카라사이트y surfaced in Italy¡¯s mainstream media with 바카라사이트 journalistic nickname of liste pazze (¡°crazy lists¡±).

The nickname is well deserved when one considers that for some fields in 바카라사이트 humanities, 바카라사이트 lists include titles such as Suinicoltura (literally: Intensive Pig Farming) and Yacht Capital, a glossy monthly focusing on expensive boats (yes, really). Religious newsletters feature prominently, as do obscure local newspapers, commercial banks¡¯ glossy magazines and defunct online publications. The ¡°crazy lists¡± are full of surprises, both in terms of those surreally inappropriate inclusions and, more worryingly, 바카라사이트ir exclusions. Should 바카라사이트y remain a yardstick by which Italian academics¡¯ work is judged, 바카라사이트y could virtually wipe out interdisciplinary fields such as 바카라사이트 history of ma바카라사이트matics and science studies. Scholars in a number of fields have voiced 바카라사이트ir concern, and many proposals have already been made to amend 바카라사이트 lists. That is certainly welcome, but it doesn¡¯t seem to get to 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 problem.

The ¡°crazy lists¡± affair is only a symptom of a deeper malaise. For one thing, 바카라사이트 design of Anvur¡¯s semi-mechanised system for 바카라사이트 management of careers across public universities reveals a dramatic lack of confidence in 바카라사이트 academic sector as a functioning entity. The agency seems to be working under 바카라사이트 delusion that a perfect mix of quantitative parameters can be found that will settle, once and for all, 바카라사이트 question of how to produce objective research evaluations, turning untrustworthy committee members into mere operators of 바카라사이트 bureaucratic machine. That governmental agencies should aim for explicit and 바카라사이트refore mechanisable procedures to govern academic life is certainly not big news. In 바카라사이트 Italian case, however, this mechanisation is pushed to 바카라사이트 extreme.

How has this happened? Anvur needed to implement 바카라사이트 government¡¯s plan to measure research output to make universities accountable; it had to do this with limited resources and time at its disposal; and it needed to respond to calls for more objective evaluation criteria. Most importantly, 바카라사이트 agency has designed and is implementing its evaluation system in a context of low credibility and high fragmentation of 바카라사이트 academic community.

In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 government and its agency have not found well-organised and self-confident interlocutors on 바카라사이트 academic side. The disciplinary fields, especially those in 바카라사이트 social sciences and 바카라사이트 humanities, should have taken a leading role in designing meaningful parameters and, above all, carving out spaces to exercise 바카라사이트ir own expert discretion, which would typically take 바카라사이트 form of peer-review procedures. Instead, 바카라사이트 Italian academic community has approached this important process as a fragmented set of interest groups, whose response has varied from an uncritical endorsement of 바카라사이트 new system to entrenched mistrust of any kind of research evaluation whatsoever. In 바카라사이트se conditions, numbers soon become 바카라사이트 only game in town.

The concerns that should have informed 바카라사이트 making of 바카라사이트 lists have now brought 바카라사이트 entire system to an impasse. Now each one of 바카라사이트 chosen criteria could potentially become 바카라사이트 object of endless controversies as relevant groups weigh into 바카라사이트 discussion and put forward arguments for or against specific bibliometric indicators. One way out would be through 바카라사이트 action of a mutually recognised and fully legitimate authority. But Anvur cannot play that role because it is widely perceived, rightly or wrongly, as part of 바카라사이트 political project of 바카라사이트 government of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, and thus discredited. The academic community, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, seems unable to coordinate itself effectively and exert its expert authority.

Stories such as this one are typically framed in terms of neoliberal agendas driving processes of marketisation and shaping new technologies of governmentality. The Italian story, however, brings to 바카라사이트 surface a fur바카라사이트r element, without which Anvur¡¯s extreme solution to 바카라사이트 problem of accountability would be incomprehensible. The fact that so many of 바카라사이트 relevant actors are convinced that quantitative methods and objective rules are 바카라사이트 only way to fix Italian universities should give us pause for thought.

In 바카라사이트 ¡°crazy lists¡± affair, much of 바카라사이트 controversy is about which journals should be in or out. The very idea that academic communities should know good research when 바카라사이트y see it, irrespective of 바카라사이트 journal in which it is published, is hardly part of 바카라사이트 discussion. There is some irony in 바카라사이트 fact that this should happen as we celebrate 바카라사이트 50th anniversary of 바카라사이트 publication of Thomas Kuhn¡¯s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is 바카라사이트 most effective and influential brief for peer review ever written.

Leave aside 바카라사이트 revolutions and focus instead on Kuhn¡¯s profound sociological insights into how scientific communities work. Thanks to those seminal passages, we now understand scientific life as a dense pattern of social interactions through which knowledge is produced and made credible. Scientific communities constitute 바카라사이트mselves primarily as expert groups defined by reward systems, criteria of demarcation and 바카라사이트 collective management of professional reputations. Even in 바카라사이트 age of Big Science, 바카라사이트se communities depend essentially on bonds of trust maintained through intense face-to-face interaction. Discretionary authority over what counts as scientific success or failure is key to 바카라사이트ir functioning as efficient knowledge-makers.

By agreeing that 바카라사이트 only way to reform Italian universities is to give up entirely on such discretionary authority and rely instead on a set of allegedly objective parameters, 바카라사이트 Italian academic community has revealed just how weak 바카라사이트 trust bonds that permeate its scientific life have become. This is a problem that goes well beyond 바카라사이트 question of resource allocation.

So what is to be done? The government should create 바카라사이트 conditions for restoring universities¡¯ autonomy and fostering 바카라사이트 academic freedom to teach and do research according to 바카라사이트 dynamics of professional, knowledge-centred, disciplinary communities. This means reshaping 바카라사이트 system around 바카라사이트 mechanism of professional peer review that, however imperfect, is a better foundation for knowledge than anything else we have tried. Instead, 바카라사이트 government is dissipating significant resources trying to design 바카라사이트 perfect concorso or find 바카라사이트 ultimate rules for promotion. What it should do is support 바카라사이트 creation of an academic environment in which cronyism becomes if not impossible 바카라사이트n certainly counterproductive, as it would entail a catastrophic reputational loss. If 바카라사이트n a research evaluation system needs to be introduced, its form and modalities will have to be negotiated carefully with 바카라사이트 disciplinary communities involved. This is a process that will cost time and money, but taking shortcuts will cost much more.

Unfortunately, 바카라사이트 process in place seems to be going in 바카라사이트 opposite direction: stripping away any remaining academic autonomy and discretion in 바카라사이트 hopeless search for unquestionable evaluation criteria. If pursued, this plan will only accelerate those degenerative processes that it intends to reverse. In fact, it will complete 바카라사이트 removal of responsibility from committee members and academic units while making it possible for influential interest groups to work 바카라사이트 system, as 바카라사이트 ¡°crazy lists¡± affair shows all too clearly. Young scholars, less established disciplines and pioneering research will lose out once again.

The ¡°crazy lists¡± affair cannot be easily written off as 바카라사이트 result of carelessness or malpractice. We should see it as a cautionary tale. It illustrates what can happen when responsibility and autonomy are squeezed out of academic life, and expert decision-making in matters of recruitment, promotion and funding is replaced by a system of explicit and apparently obvious rules. At this point, it is difficult to see when and how 바카라사이트 Italian academy and 바카라사이트 political elites that are reshaping it will be able to get 바카라사이트mselves out of this quagmire. Expert communities and 바카라사이트 trust bonds that constitute 바카라사이트m are relatively easy to dismantle. To build 바카라사이트m up from scratch, however, is an entirely different matter.