Keywords
Research evaluation
Scientific production
Social technoscience
Social Sciences Evaluación científica
Evaluación de la investigación
Producción científica
Tecnociencia social
Ciencias Sociales
How to Cite
Abstract
The evaluation of science is a subject that has generated debates and tensions in the scientific and academic community. The dominant model for the evaluation of scientific activity presents a series of criticisms and limitations, with special emphasis on the field of Social Sciences. In order to propose solutions to this phenomenon, the research formulates as a general objective to develop an alternative model of scientific production evaluation for the Social Sciences field, from the perspective of technoscience as a social phenomenon. The research raises methodological triangulation, by integrating qualitative and quantitative analysis approaches, which include methods and techniques such as bibliographic review, application of traditional metrics and alternative science measurement, as well as the application of interviews, surveys and the Delphi method. An analysis of the state of the matter was carried out, which made it possible to identify the questions, criticisms and limitations of the science evaluation processes, which contributed to establishing a balance in relation to the contributions, discussions, inputs, referential frameworks, conceptions, approaches and perspectives. The proposal is based on the techno-scientific changes introduced in the knowledge production that allow a complementation between the knowledge production and society. From this perspective, the quality and relevance of the scientific research results, epistemological diversity and the active participation of the academic and social community are promoted.
References
Aiello, E., Donovan, C., Duque, E., Fabrizio, S., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Molina, S., Oliver, E., & Reale, E. (2021). Effective strategies that enhance the social impact of social sciences and humanities research. Evidence & Policy, 17(1), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X15834126054137
Atrio, J. L. (2021). La evaluación de la ciencia: Necesidad de consensos entre la política, la gestión y el poder. Una mirada regional contemporánea. Revista Estado y Políticas Públicas, 17, 183-205. https://bit.ly/3pSpfKD
Beigel, F. (2020). FOLEC: una iniciativa regional para evaluar la evaluación de la ciencia en América Latina y el caribe, y transformarla. Pensamiento Universitario, 19, 15-27. https://bit.ly/44OOw7r
Bensaude Vincent, B. (2014). The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science.’ Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513515371
Calisto-Breiding, C., Peña-Pallauta, P., & Arellano-Rojas, P. (2021). Transformando la evaluación científica en las políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (CTI) de América Latina y el Caribe. Un estudio desde la altmetría. Información, cultura y sociedad, 45, 75-94. https://doi.org/10.34096/ics.i45.10075
Carretero, A. B., & Baeza, C. S. (2017). Latin American critical epistemologies toward a biocentric turn in communication for social change: Communication from a good living perspective. Latin American Research Review, 52(3), 431-445. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26743698
Debat, H. J. (2023). El Paisaje Actual de Publicaciones Académicas: una Visión Emergente desde el Sur Global. Revista QuímicaViva, 22(1). http://www.quimicaviva.qb.fcen.uba.ar/v22n1/E0244.html
del Valle Orellana, N. (2023). ¿Teorías críticas en América Latina?: la recepción de la Escuela de Frankfurt en el pensamiento latinoamericano. En P. Birle, S. Carreras, I. Paap, F. Schmidt-Welle (eds.), Producción de saberes y transferencias culturales: América Latina en contexto transregional. (pp. 139-158). Iberoamericana Vervuert.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2021). El fin del imperio cognitivo: la afirmación de las epistemologías del Sur. Trotta.
Echeverría, J. (2003). Science, technology, and values: towards an axiological analysis of techno-scientific activity. Technology in society, 25(2), 205-215.
Faraldo Cabana, P. (2019). Consecuencias imprevistas de la dominación anglófona en las ciencias sociales y jurídicas. Revista Española de Sociología, 28(1), 45-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2018.57
Gómez-Morales, Y. J. (2018). Abuso de las medidas y medidas abusivas. Crítica al pensamiento bibliométrico hegemónico. Anuario Colombiano de Historia Social y de la Cultura, 45(1), 269-290. https://bit.ly/3XPaXqJ
Goncharuk, A. G. (2018). Efficiency vs Effectiveness: Alternative Metrics for Research Performance. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, 7(1), 24-37. https://bit.ly/3XQoSga
Haraway, D. (1999). The Promesis of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others. In J. Wolmark (ed.), Cybersexualities: a reader on feminist theory, cyborgs and cyberspace. (pp. 314-366). Edinburgh University Press.
Harding, S. (2016). Latin American decolonial social studies of scientific knowledge: Alliances and tensions. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(6), 1063-1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916656465
Hottois, G. (2006). La Teschnoscience: de l’origine du mot à son usage actual. Regards Sur Les Technosciences. Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin.
Invernizzi, N., & Davyt, A. (2019). Críticas recientes a la evaluación de la investigación: ¿vino nuevo en odres viejos? Redes, 25(49), 233-252. https://bit.ly/3JU9xFJ
Kunttu, L., Kalliomäki, H., Dan, S., & Kuusisto, J. (2021). Developing Social Impact Evaluation Methods for Research: viewpoints on commercialization and sustainability. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(5), 44-53. https://timreview.ca/article/1441
Laako, H. (2008). Latin American critical Enquiry and the Nature of the political in the Era of Globalization. Latin American Perspectives, 35(6), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X08326015
Latour, B. (1999). Pandoras Hope Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press.
López Cerezo, J. A. (1999). Los estudios de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Revista Iberoamericana de educación, 20, 217-225. https://rieoei.org/historico/documentos/rie20a10.htm
Manzano-Arrondo, V. (2017). Hacia un cambio paradigmático para la evaluación de la actividad científica en la Educación Superior. Revista de la Educación Superior 46(183), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resu.2017.08.003
Miguel, S., & González, C. (2023). La bibliometría en la política y gestión de la ciencia y la tecnología. En A. Aracri & C. I. Fernández (coords.), Políticas de información. Una mirada desde Argentina y América Latina. (pp. 62-75). Edulp.
Nava, A. (2021). ¿Qué es la Tecnociencia? Tecnociencia, poder y entorno. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 20(41), 113-145. https://doi.org/10.18270/rcfc.v20i41.2784
Neupane, B., Batthyány, C., Vommaro, P., Beigel, F., Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., Macedo-García, A., Rovelli, L., & Babini, D. (eds). (2022). Consulta regional sobre la revisión por pares y la evaluación de la investigación en un contexto de ciencia abierta: el caso de América Latina y el Caribe. UNESCO-CLACSO/FOLEC-REDALYC.
OCDE. (1963). Frascati Manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Development: The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities. Directorate for Scientific Affairs, DAS/PD/62.47, París.
OCDE. (1992). Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. París.
Ortiz Núñez, R. (2021). Altmetrics: alternative metrics for scientific, technological and innovation evaluation. Academia Letters, Article 1658. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1658
Ortiz Ocaña, A., & Arias López, M. I. (2019). Hacer decolonial: desobedecer a la metodología de investigación. Hallazgos, 16(31), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.15332/s1794-3841.2019.0031.06
Regan, Á. (2021). Exploring the readiness of publicly funded researchers to practice responsible research and innovation in digital agriculture. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(1), 28-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1904755
R’boul, H. (2022). Intercultural philosophy and internationalisation of higher education: epistemologies of the South, geopolitics of knowledge and epistemological polylogue. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(8), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2055451
Salatino, M., y López Ruiz, O. (2021). El fetichismo de la indexación. Una crítica latinoamericana a los regímenes de evaluación de la ciencia mundial. Revista CTS, 16(46), (73-100). https://bit.ly/44IxQOW
Salomon, J. J. (1997). La ciencia y la tecnología modernas. En J. J. Salomon., F. Sagasti., y C. Sachs (Comps.), La búsqueda incierta: Ciencia, tecnología, desarrollo. (pp. 49-86). Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Smit, J. P., & Hessels, L. K. (2021). The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 323-335. https://doi. org/10.1093/reseval/rvab002
Soler-Gallart, M., & Flecha, R. (2022). Researchers’ Perceptions About Methodological Innovations in Research Oriented to Social Impact: Citizen Evaluation of Social Impact. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211067654
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2020). Altmetrics and societal impact measurements: Match or mismatch? A literature review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), e290102. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.02
Tavares, V. (ed.). (2023). Social Justice, Decoloniality, and Southern Epistemologies within Language Education: Theories, Knowledges, and Practices on TESOL from Brazil. Taylor & Francis.
Wilsdon, J. (2016). The metric tide: independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Sage. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Roelvis Ortiz Núñez