Abstract
Quantification and audit have become management tools worldwide. Since the 1990s, along with Projects 211 and 985 and the professional transformation of university teachers, bibliometric evaluation has become an important means to assess the research performance of university teachers in China. On the basis of analyzing key policy documents in different periods and bibliometric data from a Project 985 university, this study illustrates the historical construction of bibliometric evaluation as a legitimate evaluation method. The impact of quantitative assessment on the academic life of university teachers, such as decisions on where and how to publish, professionalization of academic work, ritualism in the production of knowledge, and increase in the workload of faculty members, are also analyzed on the basis of interviews with more than 36 teachers and administrators in eight universities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aagaard, K., Bloch, C. W., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the norwegian publication metric. Research Evaluation, 24, 106–17.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., Vries, R. D., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366–393.
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.
Brenneis, D., Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2005). Getting the measure of academia: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropology in Action, 12(1), 1–10.
CCNU. (2016). The notice regarding to make 2017 yearly plan. [EB/OL]. http://hr.ccnu.edu.cn/info/1011/3137.htm.
China Institute of Scientific and Technical Information. (1995). Statistical analysis of Chinese scientific papers in 1993. Science, 2, 52–55. (In Chinese).
Gläser, J., & Laudel, L. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences. The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 101–123). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2016). The proliferation of publishing: Economic rationality and ritualized productivity in a neoliberal era. The American Sociologist, 47(2–3), 174–191.
Huang, Y., Pang, S. K., & Yu, S. (2018). Academic identities and university faculty responses to new managerialist reforms: Experiences from China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 154–172.
Jiang, K. (2012). Peer review system in the construction of educational academic community. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 49(02), 150–157.
Kyvik, S., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: A generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 40(8), 1438–1453.
Li, J. (2016). The global ranking regime and the reconfiguration of higher education: Comparative case studies on research assessment exercises in China, Hong Kong, and Japan. Higher Education Policy, 29(4), 473–493.
Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X., & Qi, W. (2011). Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: Based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics, 90(2), 531–542.
Liu, W., Hu, G., Tang, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). China’s global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013). Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 555–569.
Long, J. S., Allison, P. D., & McGinnis, R. (1993). Rank advancement in academic careers: Sex differences and the effects of productivity. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 703–722.
Long, J. S., & Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 45–71.
Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nadler, Elsa G. (1999). The evaluation of research for promotion and tenure: An organizational perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Virginia University, p. 61.
National Education Commission of the People’s Republic of China. (1989). 1988 Compilation of scientific and technical statistics of colleges and universities. Wuhan: Wuhan University Press, pp. 218–219.
Paradeise, Catherine, & Jean-Claude, Thoenig. (2015). In search of academic quality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
(personal interview of a president of a 985 Project University, 2014).
Qi, M. M., & Chen, T. Z. (2016). The source of the obstacles to the implementation of university development planning and the way to solve it (In Chinese). Research in Higher Engineering Education, (04), 124–128.
Shi, Y., & Rao, Y. (2010). China’s research culture. Science, 329(5996), 1128.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology, 23(1), 22–28.
Thoenig, J. C., & Paradeise, C. (2014). Organizational governance and the production of academic quality: Lessons from two top US research universities. Minerva, 52(4), 381–417.
Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261–285.
Wallmark, J. T., & Sedig, K. G. (1986). Quality of research measured by citation method and by peer review—A comparison. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 4, 218–222.
Weingart, P. (2010). The unintended consequences of quantitative measures in the management of science. In Hans Joas (Ed.), The benefit of broad horizons. Intellectual and institutional preconditions for a global social science (pp. 371–385). Boston: Brill.
Welch, A. (2016). Audit culture and academic production. Higher Education Policy, 29(4), 511–538.
Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Engwall, L. (2010). Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships on the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yichu, Shang. (1988). China’s academic status in the world. Chinese Science Foundation, 12, 24–28.
Yan, Guang-cai. (2009). Power game and peer review system within and outside the academic community. Education Review of Peking University, 7(01), 124–138 (In Chinese).
Yi, L. (2011). Auditing Chinese higher education? The perspectives of returnee scholars in an elite university. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(5), 505–514.
Zhou, Y., & Shen, H. (2015). Peer teaching in universities: Advantages, difficulties and solutions. Fudan Education Forum, 13(3), 47–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shen, W., Mao, D., Lin, Y. (2021). Measuring by Numbers: Bibliometric Evaluation of Faculty’s Research Outputs and Impact on Academic Life in China. In: Welch, A., Li, J. (eds) Measuring Up in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7921-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7921-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-7920-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-7921-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)