Rushforth Alexander, de Rijcke Sarah
Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, P.O. Box 905, 2300 AX Leiden, The Netherlands.
Minerva. 2015;53(2):117-139. doi: 10.1007/s11024-015-9274-5.
The range and types of performance metrics has recently proliferated in academic settings, with bibliometric indicators being particularly visible examples. One field that has traditionally been hospitable towards such indicators is biomedicine. Here the relative merits of bibliometrics are widely discussed, with debates often portraying them as heroes or villains. Despite a plethora of controversies, one of the most widely used indicators in this field is said to be the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). In this article we argue that much of the current debates around researchers' uses of the JIF in biomedicine can be classed as 'folk theories': explanatory accounts told among a community that seldom (if ever) get systematically checked. Such accounts rarely disclose how knowledge production itself becomes more-or-less consolidated around the JIF. Using ethnographic materials from different research sites in Dutch University Medical Centers, this article sheds new empirical and theoretical light on how performance metrics variously shape biomedical research on the 'shop floor.' Our detailed analysis underscores a need for further research into the constitutive effects of evaluative metrics.
近年来，学术领域中绩效指标的范围和种类不断增加，文献计量指标就是其中特别明显的例子。生物医学领域传统上一直对这类指标持欢迎态度。在这个领域，文献计量学的相对优点得到了广泛讨论，相关辩论常常将其描绘成英雄或恶人。尽管存在诸多争议，但该领域使用最广泛的指标之一据说就是期刊影响因子（JIF）。在本文中，我们认为当前围绕研究人员在生物医学中使用JIF的许多辩论可归类为“民间理论”：即在一个群体中流传的解释性说法，很少（如果有的话）得到系统检验。这类说法很少揭示知识生产本身是如何围绕JIF或多或少地得到巩固的。本文利用来自荷兰大学医学中心不同研究地点的人种志资料，就绩效指标如何以不同方式塑造“实际操作层面”的生物医学研究提供了新的实证和理论见解。我们的详细分析强调有必要进一步研究评估指标的构成性影响。
