Abstract
This study empirically addresses the claim made by Gibbons et al (The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1994) that a novel form of quality control (associated with Mode 2 knowledge production) is supplementing the “traditional” peer-review process (associated with Mode 1 knowledge production). A qualitative design was used to explore faculty members’ views on the criteria for assessing scientific research. Ninety-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with biomedical scientists, clinical scientists, and social scientists working in Canadian universities. Results show that the vast majority of participants are aligned with the “traditional” Mode 1 peer-reviewed procedures for assessing research and defining scientific excellence. These participants asserted that peer review is the best quality control mechanism for assessing scientific research, and peer recognition the key attribute for legitimacy in the academic arena. In contrast, participants ascribed a low value to non-academics’ judgment of their work. While the study findings do not provide support Gibbons et al.’s claim, they add to a growing body of evidence that supports the continuing importance of peer review in academic career success.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The list of items to be ranked included: articles in peer-reviewed journals; books; book chapters; research reports commissioned by a public or private organization; popularization articles (newspapers, magazines, newsletters); published abstracts; other kinds of products.
The list of items to be ranked included: keynote speaker in a conference; discussant in a conference; poster presentation in a conference; oral presentation in a conference; invited panelist in a conference; invited presentation for the lay public; invited presentation for a professional audience (non-academic); invited presentation for an academic audience (university department, research centre, etc.); other kinds of presentations.
The list of items to be ranked included: national funding organizations; internal university foundations; public organizations (e.g., government departments); foundations (e.g., cancer, diabetes); industries, other kinds of funding organizations.
There are three national funding agencies in Canada: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. All three funding agencies use peer-review procedures for awarding research grants.
References
Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45(2), 147–182.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Calvert, J. (2004). The idea of ‘basic research’ in language and practice. Minerva, 42(3), 251–268.
Calvert, J. (2006). What’s special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(2), 199–220.
Cohen, L., McAuley, J., & Duberly, J. (2001). Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(2), 145–166.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fisher, D., & Rubenson, K. (1998). The changing political economy: The private and public lives of Canadian universities. In J. Currie & J. Newson (Eds.), Globalization and universities: Critical perspectives (pp. 77–98). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J., & House, D. (2001). Change in academic/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the networks of centres of excellence. Minerva, 39(3), 299–325.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.
Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190–212.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Langfeldt, L. (2004). In search of ‘Mode 2’: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva, 42(3), 237–250.
Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 173–198.
Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2009). Lives in science: How institutions affect academic careers?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hess, D. J. (2007). Alternatives pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2011). Practical applications as a sources of credibility: A comparison of three fields of Dutch academic chemistry. Minerva, 49(2), 215–240.
Hicks, D., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 379–406.
Holland, D. G. (2009). Between the practical and the academic. The relation of Mode and Mode 2 knowledge production in developing country. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(5), 551–572.
Jansen, J. D. (2002). Mode 2 Knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African university. Higher Education, 43(4), 507–521.
Kinchy, A. J., & Kleinman, D. (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 869–896.
Kropp, K., & Blok, A. (2011). Mode-2 social science knowledge production? The case of Danish sociology between institutional crisis and new welfare stabilizations. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 213–224.
McGuire, W. L. (2011). Constructing quality in academic science: How basic scientists respond to Canadian market-oriented science policy—A Bourdieusian analysis. PhD. Dissertation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 91–117.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695–1711.
Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Toward a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41(3), 245–261.
Polster, C. (2002). A break from the past: Impacts and implications of the Canada foundation for Innovation and the Canada research chairs initiative. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 39(3), 275–299.
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.
Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.
Snowdon, K. (2005). Without a road map: Government funding and regulation of Canadian universities and colleges. Canadian Policy Research Networks. http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=1355&l=en. Accessed 27 September, 2011.
Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50(2), 275–298.
Vallas, S., & Kleinman, D. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review, 6(2), 283–311.
Weingart, P. (1997). From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.
Ylijoki, O.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45(3), 307–335.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, grant #KTE-72140. We wish to thank the participants for giving their time to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albert, M., Laberge, S. & McGuire, W. Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. High Educ 64, 661–676 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2