Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: the views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J. (2004). The idea of ‘basic research’ in language and practice. Minerva, 42(3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, J. (2006). What’s special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, M., & Langfeldt, L. (2004). In search of ‘Mode 2’: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva, 42(3), 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermanowicz, J. C. (2009). Lives in science: How institutions affect academic careers?. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. J. (2007). Alternatives pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(4), 379–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Trends and transitions in the institutional environment for public and private science. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Toward a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41(3), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1997). From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Mathieu Albert

  2. Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Suzanne Laberge

  3. York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Wendy McGuire

Authors
  1. Mathieu Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne Laberge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendy McGuire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathieu Albert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9519-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation