[D-G] Bibliometrics advice needed.

[Harald Wenk]

Hello Ruth,
"he looks at the thing from all different point of views - he wants to BUY it" (Nietzsche).
which is "formal subsumation of the force of work (of te academics)
in terms of Marx.

Evaluuation is a step to the following "real subsumation of te force of work" (Marx),
making a sort of very repetitive woker, a  machine for simple work, out of the reasearchers and scholars,
bad paid anyway and enabling more competition and concurrence, dumping, too.

That is the reason why you get "cahllengeswq2 to an ecvaluation in a left winged
deiscsuiiongrpeop,
informed  of  socilogy and ecomomics.


Deleuze cpomplaint himself the bad possiblities of reasearch
in France, getting worse every day.



greetings Harald



--------------------------------------------------
From: "Super Dragon" <superdragon at addlebrain.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:48 AM
To: <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>
Subject: Re: [D-G] Bibliometrics advice needed.

>Dear list,
>changing tact just very slightly, myself and a scientific journals editor have gotten together to write a book about bibliometrics, This was inspired for me partly by the recent Middlesex debacle and partly by a long standing sense of indignation (ever since the first RAE) about having writing weighed by the pound. Indeed, I left academia in disgust in the late nineties with the view that who would want to play in a band with that kind of drummer...
>
>Sadly, I have learned there is little escape as these very same performance metrics continue to permeate everything I do and I suspect that is the case for any scholar (new or establsihed) with an interest in D and G.  This seems to me a travesty with limited options for defence. Either ignore it totally and meditate under a tree, which I managed to do (metaphorically) for a number of years or take it on. I am in the mode of taking on at the moment and wondered if anyone else had thoughts to share? attempts to measure reasearch quality are not going to go away but they could be less naive about the question of defining quality. In particular, we are interested in approaches to measurement that build in an untimely (indeed immeasurable)  or futue active dimension to the metrics they advocate. At presnt, the 'best' metrics are ones which appeal to anthroplogogy to propose kinship networks ( this is a reaction to the two year window arbitraily imposed to talk about an articles c
>itational life which undepins the notorious H index). I have not found anything yet that does anything more than challenege the measurement criteria for bibliometrics
>
>Sorry if this all sounds a bit technical. Any advice warmly welcomed.
>
>Cheers Ruth
>journals o valid citation indices forms of measurement that acknowledge the immeasurable as their contitive (unground)