Towards indicators for ‘opening up’ science and technology policy Ismael Rafols, Tommaso Ciarli, Patrick van Zwanenberg and Andy Stirling Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València & SPRU —Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex Stockholm, October 2013 Building on work with Loet Leydesdorff and Alan Porter
55
Embed
Towards indicators for ‘opening up’ science and technology policy Ismael Rafols, Tommaso Ciarli, Patrick van Zwanenberg and Andy Stirling Ingenio (CSIC-UPV),
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Towards indicators for ‘opening up’ science and technology policy
Ismael Rafols, Tommaso Ciarli,
Patrick van Zwanenberg and Andy Stirling
Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València &
SPRU —Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex
Stockholm, October 2013
Building on work with Loet Leydesdorff and Alan Porter
Paper born out of the reflection on the contrast between interdisciplinary research and journal rankings
Interdisciplinary maps
versus rankings
On the role of scientific advice in policy(scientometric is the science of science –hence scientific advice)
The linearity-autonomy model of scientific advice (Jasanoff, 2011) Scientific knowledge is the best possible foundation for public
decisions Scientists should establish the facts that matter independently.
– S&T indicators produce evidence of these facts.
However, this (enlightenment) model has been challenged The mechanisms to establish facts and make decisions is a social
process – “knowledge enables power, but power structures knowledge” (Stirling, 2012)
Modes of advice: The pure scientist vs. honest broker (Pielke, 2007)
What is (should be) the role of STI indicators in policy advice? Closing down vs. Opening up
The challengeProblems with current use of S&T indicators
Use of conventional S&T indicators is en *problematic*
(as many technologies, in particular those closely associated with power, e.g. nuclear)
Narrow inputs (only pubs!) Scalar outputs (rankings!) Aggregated solutions --missing variation Opaque selections and classifications (privately owned databases) Large, leading scientometric groups embedded in government /
consultancy, with limited possibility of public scrutiny Sometimes even mathematically debatable
Impact Factor of journals (only 2 years, ambiguity in document types) Average number of citations (pubs) in skewed distributions
From S&T indicators for justification and disciplining…
Justification in decision-making• Weak justification, “Give me a number, any number!”• Strong justification, “Show in numberrs that X is the best choice!”
S&T Indicators have a performative role: They don’t just measure. Not ‘just happen to be used’ in science
policy (neutral) Constitutive part incentive structure for “disciplining” (loaded) They signal to stakeholders what is important.
Institutions use these techniques to discipline subjects Articulate framings, goals and narratives on performance,
collaboration, interdisciplinarity…
… towards S&T indicators as tools for deliberation
Yet is possible to design indicators that foster plural reflection rather than justifying or reinforcing dominant perspectives
This shift is facilitated by trends pushed by ICT and visualisation tools
More inputs (pubs, pats, but also news, webs, etc.) Multidimensional outputs (interactive maps) Multiple solutions -- highlighting variation, confidence intervals More inclusive and contrasting classifications (by-passing
private data ownership? Pubmed, Arxiv) More possibilities for open scrutiny (new research groups)
1. Conceptual framework:
“broadening out” vs. “opening up” policy appraisal
Policy use of S&T indicators: Appraisal
Appraisal:
‘the ensemble of processes through which knowledges are gathered and produced in order to inform decision-making and wider institutional commitments’ Leach et al. (2008)
Breadth: extent to which appraisal covers diverse dimensions of knowledge
Openness: degree to which outputs provide an array of options for policies.
Policy use of S&T indicators: Appraisal
Appraisal:
‘the ensemble of processes through which knowledges are gathered and produced in order to inform decision-making and wider institutional commitments’ Leach et al. (2010)
Example: Allocation of resources based on research “excellence”
Breadth: extent to which appraisal covers diverse dimensions of knowledgeNarrow: citations/paper
Broad: citations, peer interview, stakeholder view, media coverage, altmetrics
Openness: degree to which outputs provide an array of options for policies. Closed: fixed composite measure of variables unitary and prescriptive
Open: consideration of various dimensions plural and conditional
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Leach et al. 2010
Appraisal methods: broad vs. narrow & closing vs. opening
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Appraisal methods: broad vs. narrow & close vs. open
cost-benefit analysis
open hearings
consensusconference
scenarioworkshops
citizens’ juries
multi-criteria mapping
q-method
sensitivityanalysis
narrative-based participant observation
decision analysis
risk assessment structured interviews
Stirling et al. (2007)
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Appraisal methods: broad vs. narrow & closing vs. opening
Most conventionalS&T indicators??
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Broadening out S&T Indicators
ConventionalS&T indicators??
Broadening out
Incorporation plural analytical dimensions:
global & local networkshybrid lexical-actor netsetc.
New analytical inputs: media, blogsphere.
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Appraisal methods: broad vs. narrow & closing vs. opening
Journal rankings
University rankings Unitary measuresthat are opaque, tendency to favour the established perspectives
… and easily translated into prescription
European InnovationScoreboard
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
Opening up S&T Indicators
ConventionalS&T Indicators??
opening-up
Making explicit underlying conceptualisations and creating heuristic tools to facilitate exploration
NOT about the uniquely best methodOr about the unitary best explanationOr the single best prediction
2. Examples of Opening Up
a. Broadening out AND Opening up
b. Opening up WITH NARROW inputs
narrow
broad
closing-down opening-up
range of appraisals inputs(issues, perspectives, scenarios, methods)
effect of appraisal ‘outputs’ on decision-making
1. Preserving multiple dimensions in broad appraisals
Comparing degree of interdisciplinarity of two university units: Manchester is more??
Multiple concepts of interdisciplinarity:
Conspicuous lack of consensus but most indicators aim to capture the following concepts
Integration (diversity & coherence)• Research that draws on
diverse bodies of knowledge • Research that links different
disciplines
Intermediation• Research that lies between or
outside the dominant disciplines
Coherence
Low High
Diversity
Low
High
InterdisciplinaryMultidisciplinary
Monodisciplinary
Intermediation
Low High
Monodisciplinary Interdisciplinary
Diversity
ISSTI Edinburgh WoS Cats of references
Assessing interdisciplinarity
ISSTI EdinburghObserved/ExpectedCross-citations
CoherenceAssessing interdisciplinarity
RiskAnal
PsycholBull
PhilosTRSocA
Organization
JPersSocPsychol
JLawEconOrgan
JIntEcon
Interfaces
EnvironSciPolicy
CanJEcon
ApplEcon
AnnuRevPsychol
RandJEcon
JPublicEcon
JManage
JLawEcon
HumRelat
BiomassBioenerg
AtmosEnviron
PolicySci
JIntBusStud
JApplPsychol
Econometrica
PublicUnderstSci
PsycholRev
JFinancEcon
JApplEcolJAgrarChangeClimaticChange
AcadManageJ
JRiskRes
JDevStud
Scientometrics
HarvardBusRev
IntJMedInform
GlobalEnvironChang
EconJ
JFinanc
StudHistPhilosSci
DrugInfJ
Futures
WorldDev
StrategicManageJ
SciTechnolHumVal
EconSoc
PublicAdmin
Lancet
IndCorpChange
AccountOrgSoc
EnergPolicy
Nature
AmJSociol
ResPolicy
TechnolAnalStrateg SocStudSciBritMedJ
ISSTI EdinburghReferences
IntermediationAssessing interdisciplinarity
Summary: IS (blue) units are more interdisciplinary than BMS (orange)
More DiverseRao-Stirling Diversity
More CoherentObserved/Expected
Cross-Citation Distance
More InterstitialAverage Similarity
0.02
0.0300000000000001
0.0400000000000001
0.0500000000000001
0.0600000000000001
0.0700000000000002
2. Excellence: Opening Up Perspectives
Provide different perspectives of performance(alternative measures of the same type of indicator)
Are measures of “excellence” consistent and robust?
Good
Average
Bad
Van Eck, Waltman et al. (2013)
More basic
More applied
Clinical neurologyIs basic always better than applied?
Citations: not stable to changes in classification and granularity (Zitt et al., 2005; Adams et al., 2008).
Measures of “excellence”
ISSTI SPRU MIoIR Imperial WBS LBS0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4A
BS R
ank
ISSTI SPRU MIoIR Imperial WBS LBS0
1
2
3
4
Cita
tions
/pub
Jo
urna
l-fiel
d N
orm
alis
ed
ISSTI SPRU MIoIR Imperial WBS LBS0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Cita
tions
/pub
Citi
ng-p
aper
Nor
mal
ised
Which one is more meaningful??
ISSTI SPRU MIoIR Imperial WBS LBS0
1
2
3
4
Jour
nal I
mpa
ct F
acto
r
The new Leiden ranking (2011-12) • Different measures of performance
• MNC, MNCS, MNCJ, Top 10%, • Under different conditions (fractional, language)• Include confidence interval (bootstrapping)
3. Summary and conclusions
S&T indicator as a tools to open up the debate
• ‘Conventional’ use of indicators (‘Pure scientist ‘--Pielke) Purely analytical character (i.e. free of normative assumptions) Instruments of objectification of dominant perspectives Aimed at legitimising /justifying decisions (e.g. excellence) Unitary and prescriptive advice
• Opening up scientometrics (‘Honest broker’ --Pielke) Aimed at locating the actors in their context and dynamics
Not predictive, or explanatory, but exploratory Construction of indicators is based on choice of perspectives
Make explicit the possible choices on what matters Supporting debate
Making science policy more ‘socially robust’ Plural and conditional advice
Barré (2001, 2004, 2010), Stirling (2008)
Strategies for opening up or how to “keep it complex” yet “manageable”
• Presenting contrasting perspectives At least TWO, in order to give a taste of choice
• Simultaneous visualisation of multiple properties / dimensions Allowing the user take its own perspective
• Interactivity Allowing the user give its own weigh to criteria / factors Allowing the user manipulate visuals
.
Is ‘opening up’ worth the effort? (1)
Sustaining diversity in S&T system
Decrease in diversity.
Potential unintended consequence of the evaluation machine:
Why diversity matters
Systemic (‘ecological’) understanding of the S&T S&T outcomes depend on synergistic interactions between
disparate elements.
Dynamic understanding of excellence and relevance New social needs, challenges, expectations from S&T
Manage diverse portfolios to hedge against uncertainty in research Office of Portfolio Analysis (National Institutes of Health)
http://dpcpsi.nih.gov/opa/
Open possibility for S&T to work for the disenfranchised Topics outside dominant science (e.g. neglected diseases)
• ‘conventional’ use of indicators Instruments of objectification Analytical character (i.e. free of normative assumptions) Aimed at making decisions (e.g. excellence) Unitary and prescritive advice
• Opening up scientometrics Construction of indicators is based on choice of perspectives
implicit normative choice on what matters Aimed at locating the actors in their context and dynamics
Not predictive, or explanatory, but exploratory Supporting debate
making science policy more ‘socially robust’ Plural and conditional advice
Barré (2001, 2004, 2010), Stirling (2008)
Heuristics of diversity
(Stirling, 1998; 2007)
Diversity:‘attribute of a system whose elements may be apportioned into categories’
Characteristics: Variety: Number of distinctive categoriesBalance: Evenness of the distribution Disparity: Degree to which the categories