The edited volume explores theory and practice of research evaluation in the social science and humanities (SSH). It is a both a detailed report on findings from perhaps the single largest and most comprehensive research assessment process in Europe in recent years—conducted in Italy between 2004 and 2016; and second, it strives to derive general propositions about what is different in SSH compared to research evaluation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The volume has four thematic blocks that include between two and five chapters each; and it closes with a reflection about the lessons learned. The editor acknowledges support from the Italian Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes (ANVUR).
The edited volume starts with the question why the ‘reaction of scientific communities against evaluation of research is almost entirely concentrated in SSH disciplines “(p.1). Chapter 1 offers an “epistemic” answer by proposing a set of fundamental differences between SSH and STEM: first, whether academic fields were swiftly established or had to dissociate themselves from existing fields over a long period of time and with considerable conflict; second, whether academic fields have developed methodological rules that are commonly accepted; third, whether academic fields have either embraced or rejected neo-positivism in the 1930s; and fourth, whether they have either embraced or rejected post-structuralism in the 1960s. Based on these four criteria, Chapter 1 argues that academic fields which were established in conflict with pre-existing fields, that reject both the notion of a core methodology and ideas proposed by neo-positivism, but have embraced post-structuralism, are likely to reject quantitative research evaluation. The prime example is English Literature, but also other schools in anthropology, sociology, and philosophy are identified. At a more fundamental level, Chapter 1 is highly critical of the work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault and his disciples who have associated quantitative research evaluation with the emergence of industrial capitalism in the 19th century and its comprehensive control regime. Yet, Chapter 1 argues that commensuration practices emerged well before this in the context of the enlightenment of the 17th century. While acknowledging that the ‘transformation of social reality into numbers is a fundamental way to extend social control over reality itself’ (p. 21), Chapter 1 reminds the reader that accountability of public research is an important dimension of democracy. Also, it argues that resistance against bibliometrics by SSH disciplines could be constructively addressed and perhaps overcome by focusing on ‘procedural fairness’, including ‘transparency in the selection of experts, self-candidatures, rotation of experts, duplication of roles in presence of severe antagonism among schools, [and] short periods of charge’(p. 22).