Picking up on Olof Hallonsten’s contention that contemporary science evaluation is ‘mostly counterproductive’, we argue that the contemporary focus on evaluation is antagonistic to innovation or novelty in science, even though innovation is one of the values that evaluation is often supposed to support. In arguing for the antagonistic relation between evaluation and innovation, we consider arguments from the nature of audit and the situational logic of scientific practice.
BhattacharyaJPackalenM (2020) Stagnation and scientific incentives. Working Paper 26752. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26752
2.
D’AgostinoF (2019a) The situational logic of disciplinary scholarship. In: SassowerRLaorN (eds) The Impact of Critical Rationalism: Expanding the Popperian Legacy through the Works of Ian C. Jarvie. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 45–57.
HallonstenO (2021) Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information60(1): 7–26.
5.
HuebnerJ (2005) A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change72(8): 980–986.
6.
LarivièreVGingrasYArchambaultÉ (2009) The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900–2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60(4): 858–862.
7.
MalpasJ (2018) ‘Taking everything in hand’: Managerialism and technology. In: YeatmanACosteaB (eds) The Triumph of Managerialism? New Technologies of Government and Their Implications for Value. London: Rowman and Littlefield, 21–42.
8.
PowerM (1997) The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
ShoreCWrightS (2015) Governing by numbers: Audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie sociale23(1): 22–28.
10.
TraversM (2007) The New Bureaucracy: Quality Assurance and its Critics. Bristol: Policy Press.
11.
UzziBMukherjeeSStringerM, et al. (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science342(6157): 468–471.
12.
WangJVeugelersRStephanP (2016) Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Working Paper 22180. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22180
13.
WhitleyR (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.