Mätbarhetens återverkan : hur prestationsbaserade utvärderingssystem påverkar forskar- och publiceringspraktiker, disciplinära normer samt skapandet av forskarsubjekt vid de Humanistiska och teologiska fakulteterna, Lunds universitet

In order to enhance the accountability and legitimacy of public research, performance-based research funding systems have been introduced in numerous countries during the last decades. Although this development has gathered considerable interest in recent years, it is thus far not clear how performance measures shape research practices and academic subjectivity. Combining bibliometric studies and qualitative interviews, this thesis investigates how scholars at the faculty of Humanities and Theology at Lund University respond to the implementation of a performance-based research funding system. The aim is to provide an in-depth study of how research practices, disciplinary norms, and academic subjectivity is affected by the increased role of bibliometric measurement in research evaluation. Publication patterns from 2002 to 2014 depicts a substantial increase of publication output as well as scholar’s average publication rate. Furthermore, they demonstrate a steady increase in the number and the proportion of journal publications, especially English-language ones, as well as journal publications indexed in Web of Science. While these changes are in line with the incentives of the evaluation system under study, no radical shift in publication practices can be detected. Thus, it seems as the evaluation system primarily strengthens already existing tendencies in the academic field. The interview study shows that disciplinary differences, career stage, and academic age are important factors in understanding how evaluation systems can affect research practices and academic subjectivity. It is evident that the use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation does not only evoke a conflict between disciplinary norms and external demands, but also affect the disciplinary norms as such by constituting a powerful discourse of what a good academic subject is. This is particularly applicable for international publications, which the informants perceive as a hierarchical mechanism in research assessment, essential to their future career. This career driven mind-set, which should be comprehended as a survival driven mind-set, impels humanities scholars to adapt to dominant trends in academia; trends that are enhanced by the implementation of an evaluation system unilaterally defining researcher’s achievements and professional subjectivity in terms of international publications. Regarding this, evaluation systems and bibliometric indicators exists as an instrument of governmentality, producing a field of realities that scholars must act upon as they constitute themselves as a good and successful academic subject