Britain’s recent move to replace its expensive Research Assessment Exercise with a cheaper “research metrics” formula for evaluating research productivity provides a disturbing and, perhaps, dangerous precedent.
Whatever its presumed merits in the United Kingdom, any plan to evaluate scholarship on the basis of “research income, postgraduate numbers and bibliometrics” (citation counts) would produce nonsense outcomes in Canada.
Scholarship produced by diverse methods and directed to enormously varied problems cannot be measured by the leveling device of research income. This measure will inevitably lead to an academic hierarchy that places gadget-intensive sciences at the top, positivist social science in the middle, and humanities at the bottom. Many historians, philosophers, and the like find distraction, not assistance, in the data banks, developmental workshops and armies of employed researchers, or funded graduate students that accompany large research budgets in their disciplines.
As for bibliometrics, it tends to follow fashion rather than merit. The simple fact that most English-language academics and most English-language journals in most disciplines are in the United States distorts enormously. The extraordinary parochialism of U.S. academics renders historical research on Riel’s rebellion or the development of responsible government in Canada, for example, unworthy. Pursuing such questions is akin to professional suicide in a bibliometric world: rational historians, wherever they may be, must focus their energies on fashionable U.S. topics.
Similar forces are at play, albeit on a different scale, in many areas of British studies. Regardless of quality, scholars governed by “metrics” are ill-advised to publish in British journals, much less Canadian or Australian ones. Just as U.S. journals rule, so too do topics of interest to a mass readership of American academics.
And yet, Canada matters — at least to the people who live here — and Britain has mattered enormously in the history of the world. Humanities scholarship needs to be saved from the enormous condescension of a uni-polar world.
Finally, an obvious point. Like bibliometrics, graduate students follow fashion, not excellence. Legal scholars had better work on constitutional law or law and economics in preference to trust doctrine, 15th century legal scholarship, or standards of review in administrative law, for example. Although smart students will always seek out excellent supervisors, “quality” has little to do with the fields they will choose to focus on. Although fashions change, they do so on a timescale bearing little relation to either funding cycles or academic careers.
In short, whatever its merits in Britain, the evaluation of research by metrics in Canada’s social sciences and humanities discipline would systematically undervalue excellent work and occasionally elevate palpable nonsense. It would systematically undervalue Canada itself. W. Wesley Pue is professor of law, associate dean for graduate studies and research, and holds the Nathan T. Nemetz Chair in Legal History at the University of British Columbia.
The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily CAUT.
Commentary: CAUT welcomes articles between 800 and 1,500 words on contemporary issues directly related to post-secondary education. Articles should not deal with personal grievance cases nor with purely local issues. They should not be libellous or defamatory, abusive of individuals or groups, and should not make unsubstantiated allegations. They should be objective and on a political rather than a personal subject. A commentary is an opinion and not a “life story.” First person is not normally used. Articles may be in English or French, but will not be translated. Publication is at the sole discretion of CAUT. Commentary authors will be contacted only if their articles are accepted for publication. Commentary submissions should be sent to Liza Duhaime.
Les opinions exprimées sont celles des auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement la position officielle de l’ACPPU.
Commentaires destinés à la rubrique Tribune libre : L’ACPPU invite les lecteurs à soumettre des articles de 800 à 1 500 mots qui portent sur des questions d’actualité liées directement à l’enseignement postsecondaire. Les articles ne doivent traiter ni de dossiers de griefs particuliers ni de questions d’intérêt strictement local. Ils ne doivent pas comporter des allégations non fondées ni des propos diffamants, calomniateurs ou offensants envers des personnes ou des groupes. Les articles doivent être empreints d’une objectivité totale et aborder des sujets de nature politique plutôt que personnelle. Un commentaire est avant tout l’expression d’une opinion et non pas le « récit d’une vie ». Il convient normalement de le formuler à la première personne. Les articles peuvent être soumis en français ou en anglais, mais ils ne seront pas traduits. L'ACPPU se réserve le droit de choisir les articles qui seront publiés. La rédaction ne communiquera avec les auteurs de commentaires que si elle décide de publier leurs articles. Les commentaires doivent être envoyés à Liza Duhaime.