首页> 外文期刊>Research evaluation >Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: A delphi study among scholars of english literature, german literature and art history
【24h】

Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: A delphi study among scholars of english literature, german literature and art history

机译:评估人文学科研究质量的标准:英语文学,德国文学和艺术史学者之间的德尔菲研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

How to assess research quality in the humanities is an intricate question. Despite the recent efforts of many initiatives, the measurement and assessment of research quality still faces strong opposition from humanities scholars, indicating that currently used evaluation schemes and tools are not tailored well enough to humanities disciplines. We have collected quality criteria from scholars in Switzerland and at League of European Research Universities (LERU) in the three disciplines, German literature studies, English literature studies and art history with a multiround Delphi survey. The first Delphi round resulted in a comprehensive list of 19 criteria of good research specified by 70 aspects. Although 10 of these criteria are well known and commonly used in various evaluation schemes, nine criteria are not, or at least not frequently, employed in evaluation schemes. In the second Delphi round, consensual criteria and aspects (i.e. items that were clearly approved by a majority and disapproved by very few scholars) were identified in each discipline. Specifically, 11 criteria reached consensus in all three disciplines (shared criteria), six criteria were consensual in only one or two disciplines (discipline-specific criteria) and two criteria were not consensual in any discipline (i.e. 'productivity' and 'relation to and impact on society'). The results of this study corroborate previous findings that researchers have not yet adopted Mode 2-related assessment criteria. Implications for research assessment are being discussed. The focus lies in particular on the mismatch of criteria between evaluators and scholars as well as on an approach to bridge such a mismatch.
机译:如何评估人文学科的研究质量是一个复杂的问题。尽管最近已采取了许多举措,但对研究质量的评估和评估仍面临人文学者的强烈反对,这表明当前使用的评估方案和工具还不足以适应人文学科。我们通过多次德尔菲调查,从瑞士和欧洲研究大学联盟(LERU)的三个学科,德国文学研究,英国文学研究和艺术史的学者那里收集了质量标准。第一轮Delphi回合产生了由70个方面指定的19项良好研究标准的综合清单。尽管这些标准中有10条是众所周知的,并且通常在各种评估方案中使用,但是在评估方案中没有或至少不经常使用9条标准。在第二轮德尔菲回合中,每个学科都确定了共识的标准和方面(即被多数人明确批准而很少学者拒绝的项目)。具体而言,在所有三个学科(共同的标准)中有11条标准达成共识,在一个或两个学科(特定学科的标准)中只有6条标准是一致的,而在任何学科中都没有两个标准(即“生产力”和“与……的关系”)是一致的。对社会的影响”)。这项研究的结果证实了以前的发现,即研究人员尚未采用与模式2相关的评估标准。正在讨论对研究评估的意义。重点尤其放在评估者和学者之间的标准不匹配以及弥合这种不匹配的方法上。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号