What is it about?
We focus on two countries' (the UK and NZ) research assessment systems. These are the REF and PBRF respectively. We ask how accounting academics in those two countries experience/react to the systematic differences between these two systems. These academics agree that journal rankings and citations shape their choice of publication outlet. But the UK academics are more critical of research assessment which has had a longer history than in NZ. NZ academics have less push-back but recognise growing individualism. In both countries, these academics lament the lack of focus on practitioner engagement.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This work is theorised using the notion of a 'spectacle society' - drawing on Debord (1992) and Flyverbom and Reinecke (2017). This theorisation helped to show the different ways in which academics respond to research assessment which challenges some of the prior research which has posited research assessment exercises as only negative.
Perspectives
It was interesting to see the diverse reactions to research assessment exercises by different academics, often irrespective of their seniority. In this paper we challenge academics to work to shape such exercises to capture the more important aspects of research. For me, that would be answering 'real world questions' that can speak to practitioners and policy makers.
Professor Carolyn J Cordery
Victoria University of Wellington
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The spectacle of research assessment systems: insights from New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, April 2020, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/aaaj-01-2019-3865.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
