Research quality: a technocratic issue or a philosophical question?

DOI

Motorbyke

A minister of the French government summoned a few of the most eminent merchants and asked them for suggestions on how to stimulate trade-as if he would know how to choose the best of these. After one had suggested this and another that, an old merchant who had kept quiet so far said: “Build good roads, mint sound money, give us laws for exchanging money readily but as for the rest, leave us alone! [Lasst uns machen] ” If the government were to consult the Philosophy Faculty about what teachings to prescribe for scholars in general, it would get a similar reply: just don’t interfere with the progress of understanding and science. (I. Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, AK VII, 19-20 n2)

When Francesca Di Donato wrote the article we are proposing for open peer review, the COARA principles and its internal governance could perhaps still be developed in a Kantian way. Now, however, with the benefit of hindsight, we are in a better position to see whether this alleged potential has been developed or not.

In the concluding remarks of her article, Francesca Di Donato argues, following Kant, that the evaluation of research belongs only to the scientific community: “philosophical activity is fundamental research, the exercise of a method which consists in subjecting any doctrine to criticism, and as such it is the fundamental precondition of all knowledge. It consists of free communities of peers who learn from their mistakes and constantly self-correct.” Therefore, she concludes, “changing the way we evaluate is not enough if we do not also discuss the evaluators themselves. The last point is at the core of a responsible research assessment reform. In fact, the ARRA requires the direct involvement of individual academics and of scientific communities in the definition of new criteria and processes (ARRA, 2022, pp. 3, 5, 6, 9), but academic communities should assume collective ownership and control over the infrastructures necessary for successful reform. This last point is not as prominent in the ARRA as it should have been – and should be a central governing principle in the future CoARA.”

The following presentation will address two questions:

  1. Did COARA take Francesca Di Donato’s suggestions seriously?
  2. If not, why not? Simple reluctance or deeper structural reasons?

1. Promises unkept?

The first sections of Francesca Di Donato’s article report on the origins and principles of the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA), on the basis of which the COARA coalition was formed.

It is worthy of note that the whole process was initiated by the EU Commission and supported by the EU Council, and gained momentum when the Covid-19 pandemic showed that the current system of research evaluation ensures neither accessibility nor quality of science – precisely because it is mainly based on the quantity of publications and citations.

Certainly, the EU Commission and the European Council relied on a mass of scholarly studies, both independent and commissioned, on the basis of which they promoted the reform of research assessment. It is difficult to deny, however, that their political intervention was not merely infrastructural, as Kant demanded in the above quote, but was intended to affect the very core of scientific activity, namely the way in which scientists evaluate their work.

When research evaluation is in the hands of bureaucratic and more or less centralized agencies, the greatest flaw of bibliometrics – the idea that scientific literature can be evaluated without reading and understanding it, using quantitative criteria that are easy to game – becomes a virtue. Peer review, based on the living craftsmanship of scientists debating among themselves, cannot be used as a weapon of mass evaluation, because it does not scale. Therefore, the abolition of bibliometrics as an evaluation tool would also imply the abolition or strong reduction of huge and powerful centralized evaluation agencies such as the Italian ANVUR or the Spanish ANECA.

Since even centralized evaluation agencies such as ANVUR and ANECA could join COARA and sit on its steering committee, there should be some ambiguity and compromise in the ARRA principles.

As reported by Francesca Di Donato, the second ARRA commitment, qualitative assessment, requires that research be evaluated by reading and discussing scientists’ work rather than by counting it. This commitment, in other words, emphasizes the centrality of peer review as part of a public scientific debate that should itself be an object of research rather than a ritual.1 In addition, the third commitment advocates “responsible metrics” by abandoning “the inappropriate use of indicators such as JIF and h-index”.

And yet, when COARA was accused of the hideous sin of “bibliometric denialism“, some prominent COARA members felt it necessary to defend it against such an accusation. They answered by trying to balance qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

Using scientometrics alone for assessments at lower levels of granularity, i.e., for the assessment of individuals, including consequential purposes such as allocating rewards (funding, jobs), is highly problematic. In such cases, peer review should be preferred.

However,

the use of scientometrics at higher levels of aggregation, such as country or university level, and for less consequential forms of assessment such as for scholarly understanding, is far less problematic (if still imperfect).

They also showed awareness of the trickle-down effect of bibliometrics in general, which is well known to Italian researchers. If the institutions in which they work are evaluated and funded on the basis of quantitative criteria, researchers will be pressured to follow bibliometrics, despite any commitment to its responsible use.

The fact remains that an over-reliance on even responsible scientometrics can still have a negative impact on the research evaluation ecosystem due to trickle-down effects. The legitimate use of bibliometrics to understand country-level activity can soon end up illegitimately in promotion criteria if too much reward is associated with bibliometric assessments at higher levels of aggregation.

Although seemingly reassuring, this balanced response reveals that COARA does not want to eliminate bibliometrics as a weapon of mass evaluation, nor the centralized agencies that depend on it.

Regarding the trickle-down effect, the response cites Principle 9 of the Leiden Manifesto for the responsible use of bibliometrics, which states that such an effect can be avoided by adopting “a set of indicators” rather than “a single one” that invites “gaming and goal displacement (in which the measurement becomes the goal)”. In other words, the Leiden solution against the gaming of quantitative indicators is the technocratic idea of multiplying them in order to make gaming more difficult.

But why can quantitative indicators be gamed? Just because researchers subjected to them are inherently evil and need to be harnessed with solutionist solutions? Or because bibliometric indicators, at any level of “granularity”, are only orthogonally related to research quality, even though they are indispensable to centralized bureaucracies that are incapable of reading and understanding science as it is not only written, but also done? Indeed, if administrators subjugate2 them under evaluation criteria that cannot grasp the substance of science, it is easier to explain how researchers can be tempted to game the system for the sake of either their careers or their sheer academic survival, even without assuming that they are particularly evil.

COARA did not include commercial publishers in its coalition because of their inherent conflict of interest in favor of journal-based evaluation systems. However, it does not seem to have perceived the conflict of interest in favor of bibliometrics as a weapon of mass evaluation inherent in centralized evaluation agencies such as ANVUR or ANECA, which were accepted not only as members but even as possible candidates of its steering board. COARA’s response to the accusation of “bibliometric denialism” suggests that this may have been done on purpose: there would indeed be no conflict of interest if the reform of research evaluation were not intended to jeopardize state evaluation and its bibliometric weapons.

On the other hand, COARA’s emphasis on qualitative evaluation might suggest that its goal is (also) to downgrade mass (and quantitative) evaluation in favor of peer review. If, however, centralized evaluation agencies that want to maintain their power are represented in COARA’s steering board, this could create an unnoticed conflict of interest and make their downscaling very difficult.3

2. Quality and freedom

In the language of COARA quality is linked to peer review and is an alternative to bibliometrics. While bibliometrics is the weapon of mass evaluation of choice for bureaucracies unable to understand science, qualitative evaluation is associated with free and open discussion among (expert) peers and thus with open science.

Many international and national organizations have taken the trouble to define and recommend it: in a research system deeply shaped and distorted by weapons of mass evaluation, administrators still seem to feel entitled to tell scientists how to do their work.4 Even without the looming presence of COARA’s “responsible” bibliometrics, the trap of bureaucracy with its normalizing power seems difficult to avoid, so that the only quality we can hope for is the one standardized in the concept of quality control.

The modern scientific revolution was not a decision made by monarchs or a high-ranking administrators. According to Paul David, the idea of science as a common good, based on collaboration and funded by aristocratic patrons, is rooted in a pre-capitalist and less bureaucratized world. If we want to loosen the grip of bureaucracy that leads to research without quality, we cannot conceive openness as an administrative task. In fact, the goal is not to make a lot or resources open for business,5 but to maintain or recreate conditions that allow scientific communities to improve the quality of their work through free collaboration and criticism.

3. Quality: an elusive definition

According to Wilhelm von Humboldt, whose university reform the European Union has almost dismantled through the Bologna process, “it is a peculiarity of the higher scientific institutions that they always treat science as a problem that has still not been fully resolved and therefore remain constantly engaged in research“. This is why the definition of quality in science is so elusive for finite rational beings, who, as such, have no general formula of truth.

The question of the definition of quality is at the heart of The Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig.

The first attempt of solution is refusing to deal with the definition as a theoretical problem and trying to attain it practically. This is the experiment undertaken by Phaedrus, the alter ego of Pirsig at Bozeman: abolish grades and ask students to judge papers day by day. At the end of the experiment, he discovered that students tended to imitate each other and the teacher. It is not surprising: if you rely on practice without any effort of theoretical reflection, what do you get? Only fashion, whose whims cannot be reduced to a concept, but can only be imitated.

Paradoxical as it may seem, this is also the hubris of the bibliometric research evaluation: why bother to look for the elusive and not-scalable quality of research when we can easily calculate its impact, namely its fashionability? Pirsig, however, avoided this hubris by conceiving the scientific method as the way in which rational but finite beings can approach quality. While it cannot attain Truth, it can help to select a single (and perhaps provisional) truth from among many hypothetical truths. But to understand its process, one must be part of it: one cannot be a bureaucrat who, however “responsibly”, annotates the “impact” of something he cannot and will not understand.

Therefore, also when we need to use static patterns of quality for punctual evaluations – for example, when recruiting researchers or selecting projects for funding – we should be aware that, however transparent and verifiable they may be, they do not do justice to the whole process, which is not static but dynamic.

For this reason, as Kant shows in the Conflict of Faculties, universities and research institutions cannot be bureaucratic institutions at the service of “truths” administratively established without jeopardizing the credibility of science. Therefore, within the university, freedom of public criticism is not just a privilege: it is the very condition of the possibility of an institutional scientific research. This freedom does not mean the power to give orders, as in hierarchical organizations, but rather the possibility of challenging the government and the scholars working at its service.

Rational but finite beings cannot allow truth to be established by political powers or by scholars acting as ministers in their service without delegitimizing government and suppressing the pursuit of truth itself. Hence

to the question: who evaluates? Kant responds, the scientific community, because only scientists can judge scientists. If it were to be altered by reasons external to its own reason, namely the search for truth, science would no longer be such

4. EU, or the Elusive Union

According to Kant, politicians should be concerned with the infrastructure of research and not with the way in which researchers carry out their research. Caesar non est supra grammaticos.

Many EU administrators like to present themselves as Kantian, at least in their statements of values. But, in planning ARRA and COARA, they hardly followed his advice.

  1. They discovered, albeit belatedly, that a quantitative evaluation undermines the quality of research.
  2. To solve this problem, they assembled a loose coalition of universities, research institutions, learned societies and evaluation agencies with the task of promoting a reform of research evaluation, as if the dominance of bibliometrics and the consequent damage to research quality were the result of decisions made exclusively by researchers.

Kantian politicians would have done the opposite. First, they would have avoided interfering with the evaluation of research, because “Caesar non est supra grammaticos”. Second, they would have examined whether there were infrastructural conditions that a political action could have improved. They would have discovered that the “irresponsible” use of bibliometrics as a weapon of mass evaluation is linked to centralized evaluation agencies like ANVUR and ANECA. Finally, they would have exercised their legitimate authority to enact a single law: one that would eliminate or minimize any form of centralized administrative evaluation of research under the jurisdiction of state or corporate bureaucracies.

In the conundrum of short-sightedness and conflicts of interest affecting COARA, the original sin may be the overlap of administrative power and research – a sin that the elusive Union seems to have neither the strength nor the awareness, or even the will, to redeem. And COARA alone certainly cannot do what the EU legislator had neither the spirit nor the courage to do.

Accessi: 180

To publish or to republish, that is the question: is the right of republication just palliative care?

DOI

Skull

Why do so many European countries grant scientific authors who receive public funding a right of republication (or secondary publication) that allows them to make their work freely available to the public even if they have assigned their copyright to a commercial publisher?

If scholars really want to make a public use of reason in the Kantian sense, why is publication not enough?

The root of such a predicament is not copyright, which can be circumvented to foster a growing public domain instead of commercial monopolies, as the GNU-GPL and Creative Commons licenses show. It is an evaluation of research that has been separated from the discussion among researchers who can understand and critique the “content” of the papers, to be placed in the hands of bureaucrats, or scholars working as bureaucrats, who use bibliometrics to make calculations about “containers” or publication venues.

As a result, the owners of the containers, which have become indispensable for evaluating research and deciding on researchers’ careers, have been able to impose restrictive copyright terms on authors and their institutions and to extract ever higher prices from a kind of publishing that no longer has anything to do with “making public”. In countries like Italy, whose legislation does not even recognize the right of republication, their oligopolistic position is even stronger because bibliometric evaluation is not only centralized, but also mandated by a government-appointed agency, ANVUR.

Therefore, a right of secondary publication could certainly help, but just as a palliative to a crisis of publication that could only be overcome by burning its root, which is a journal-based evaluation of research.

The full text of the article is available here: https://zenodo.org/records/10955498

Tags:

Accessi: 146

The Scale and the Sword: Science, State and Research Evaluation

DOI

Brennus: vae victis

If this were only a domestic issue, the fact that some of the international literature on research assessment in Italy appears misleading to many Italian-speaking researchers would not be so important. Now, however, the ANVUR, the Italian agency for research assessment appointed by the government, is participating in the research assessment reform process initiated by the COARA coalition, in a way that is not only inconsistent, but may put the entire COARA project at serious risk of failure. Therefore, we decided to present a translation of a 2017 article dealing with Andrea Bonaccorsi’s closed-access book La valutazione possibile. Teoria e pratica nel mondo della ricerca. Bologna. Il Mulino, 2015. Andrea Bonaccorsi is a former member of ANVUR’s board of directors, who has attempted to provide one of the broadest theoretical justifications for the Italian research assessment system, which is pervasive, centralized, mostly bibliometric, and under government control. A highly abbreviated English version of Bonaccorsi’s argument, which is also behind a paywall, can be found here.

Anonymous peer review has been, and continues to be, an important part of the process leading to the publication of an article in scholarly journals that are still built on the “affordances” of print technology. Two or more scholars from suitable disciplinary fields, chosen at the discretion of the journal’s editorial board and protected by anonymity, are asked to give an ex ante opinion on the acceptability of a text for publication. What the reviewers reject never sees the light of day, nor do their opinions and any discussions with the authors.

The Italian version of this essay, on the other hand, was born – together with a twin written by the jurist Roberto Caso – as an experiment in open peer review, which at the time was – and still is – rather unusual in Italy, where the state assessment of research requires anonymous peer review in order for a work of scholarship to be considered scientific. Open and post-publication peer review, however, would make it possible to moderate centralized and hierarchical evaluation systems by making the entire discussion public, recognizing the merits of the reviewers, and exposing any conflicts of interest.

To deal with Andrea Bonaccorsi’s justification of state evaluation of research, we will pretend – for the sake of discussion – that the system he theorizes produces a faithful snapshot of the way the scientific community evaluates itself. But even so, it can be shown that his justification leads to a research evaluation system that is practically despotic and theoretically retrograde. The system is despotic because it transforms an informal and historical ethos into a fixed rule of administrative law, which ceases to be an object of choice for the scientific community. And it is retrograde because, by establishing this rule, it blocks evolution in a still image, like the Sleeping Beauty’s castle, which cannot be overcome without further bureaucratic intervention.

In addition to the main argument, there are two ancillary parts: the first deals with the question, proposed by Bonaccorsi, of the empirical verifiability of some of the criticisms made against him; the second is an examination of a sample of quotations used by him to support some important passages. Finally, the conclusion briefly outlines the ideal and critical perspective of open science that inspires this paper.
In this spirit, whenever possible, we have cited legally accessible versions and reviews of the paywalled sources that Bonaccorsi prefers, so that the reader can check our argument without having to overcome further economic barriers.

The Italian version of this essay was written in 2017, but we resisted the temptation to add a lot of updated references, even if they would have helped to support our points. We trust that our critique of the centralized and bureaucratic system of research evaluation can survive not only by relying on the literature of six years ago, but also on that of a hundred years ago.

A final warning: the term “state evaluation” is modeled on the term “state capitalism“. Just as state capitalism is an economic system in which the state is involved in business and profit-making economic activity, state science and state evaluation of research suggest that the state, directly or indirectly through its agencies, is involved in defining what is good science and what is not. In Italian we use “di stato” after a noun both in a neutral sense (“esame di stato”: state examination) and in a polemical sense, as in “delitto di stato” (a crime committed by the state itself). Translating “valutazione di stato” as “centralized evaluation” would lose the nuances of the Italian expression, while the adjective “governmental” might suggest a Foucauldian undertone that would betray the spirit of this essay, whose main point is closer to Kant: discussing how research is evaluated is a waste of time if we do not address the question of who is entitled to do it.

We will be inviting some reviewers, but even if you are not invited, your comments are welcome: to take part, read the instructions in the grey box at the bottom of this page. The article to comment is available here (https://commentbfp.sp.unipi.it/maria-chiara-pievatolo-the-scale-and-the-sword-statal-science-and-research-evaluation/).

Tags:

Accessi: 274

Brunella Casalini, “Care of the self and subjectivity in precarious neoliberal societies”

E. Munch, Ansia

The word “precarity” derives from the Latin prex, precis, meaning request or prayer. The Latin precarius, used both as a religious and juridical term, meant “obtained by prayer,” as a favor, in an asymmetrical relationship of dependency, and thus was always revocable, with no guarantee of lasting over time. Through an extension of its original meaning, “precarious” has come to mean something that is uncertain or insecure. Since the end of the 1980s, the term precarity has been used to describe the new social insecurity experienced by many in “precarious work,” meaning work that is “uncertain, unstable, and insecure, and in which employees bear the risks of work (as opposed to business or the government) and receive limited social benefits and statutory entitlements”.

According to Brunella Casalini, neoliberal individuals are invited to think themselves as free, or, better, as free entrepreneurs of themselves. However, being owners and developers of ourselves is not the same as being our own masters. In a competitive environment the entrepreneurial self is engaged in a never ending struggle to remain in the winning side of a zero sum game in which there are no longer horizontal relationships of exchange, but only winners and losers. Here precarity has become a general regime, “a hegemonic mode of being governed and governing ourselves”. “Self-care” and care of others are not absent: they need, however, to be conceived as an investment, justified as such and pursued in terms of profit or as a means to add value to one’s human capital.

For this reasons the owners of themselves are, at the same time, their own exploited slaves – precarious workers praying for mercy in a merciless world whose very atomization makes it impossible to organize a critical, collective resistance.

Cynicism, depression, burnout and exhaustion  are the inevitable outcomes of such a situation, but it would be mistaken to treat them as medical questions: they are public feelings and critical resources. The question is only how to make them political. The illness, indeed, is not individual: it is systemic.

Brunella Casalini, Care of the self and subjectivity in precarious neoliberal societies

DOI

Accessi: 832

Call for reviewers: Mauro Lenci, “Italian moderates between absolute monarchy and the sovereignty of the people”

Via di mezzo 38, targa con nome della via da Wikimedia CommonsBetween 1843 and 1861, Italian moderates were crucial in the process of the country’s unification. The latest historiography has extensively analyzed their role in all of its internal and international implications and has often emphasized their cultural backwardness in comparison to the major European currents of thought.

On the other hand, the Italian historian Luca Mannori has denounced the inconsistency of portraying Italian liberals as feeble and narrow-minded, vis à vis their mobilization for the constitution involving all of the states of the peninsula in the first few months of 1848. Indeed, their theories proved to be decisive in the transition from the old monarchic and aristocratic world to the new democratic one. Therefore, according to Mauro Lenci, it is worth analyzing their two-faced relation with popular sovereignty, to contribute to understand the neglected political and theoretical reasons of their success.

We are submitting the essay to our experimental open peer review. Commenting is easy: you should simply register here, log in our Commentbfp site, click back to Mauro Lenci’s paper and start writing your remarks.

If you are not familiar with the Commentpress interface we are using, check How to read a Commenpress document on the Commentpress site. If you need more information, ask us.

Mauro Lenci, Scylla and Charybdis: Italian moderates between absolute monarchy and the sovereignty of the people 1843–1861

DOI

Tags:

Accessi: 266

Research evaluation and academic freedom: an Italian debate

Particolare della Scuola di Atene di Raffaello The Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica is submitting to an open peer review a couple of articles meant for the debate on the theoretical and practical justification of the Italian research assessment system, which entrusts an academic élite nominated by the government with a huge, unbalanced power. In the opinion of Andrea Bonaccorsi, a former member of the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research Institutes board of directors, the governmental evaluation of scientific research can be justified on the basis of his – peculiar – reading of R.K. Merton’s normative sociology of science.

The articles written, respectively, by Roberto Caso and Maria Chiara Pievatolo, scrutinize Bonaccorsi’s claims both from a legal and from a philosophical point of view.

Roberto Caso, in Una valutazione (della ricerca) dal volto umano: la missione impossibile di Andrea Bonaccorsi [The Human Face of Evaluation of Science: the Mission Impossible of Andrea Bonaccorsi], challenges the main argument of Bonaccorsi, according to which the governmental evaluation of scientific research is an expression of Mertonian norms of science (communism, universalism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism). Such an interpretation, in Roberto Caso’s opinion, is untenable for two main reasons:

  • it rests on a remarkable misrepresentation of Merton’ s thought;
  • it neglects the difference between fixed, formal legal rules and fluid, informal norms; hence, it underestimates the effects of a transformation from the former to the latter.

Maria Chiara Pievatolo’s La bilancia e la spada: scienza di stato e valutazione della ricerca [The scale and the sword: science, government and research evaluation] goal is showing that the research assessment system resulting from Bonaccorsi’s misinterpretation of Merton would be both practically despotic and theoretically retrograde even if, at the very moment of the evaluation, the sociological description of the state of the research were true and we lived in a faultless Mertonian world.

The resulting system would be despotic because it would transform an informal ethos into a rigid set of administrative laws outside the researchers’ control; and it would be retrograde because such a set would also freeze the evolution of the ways in which scientists publish, discuss and assess their works, in a kind of enchanted Sleeping Beauty castle.

Both articles are in Italian: nostra res agitur. You may review them on SJScience.org, here and here.

DOI

DOI

Tags:

Accessi: 737