What counts in research? Dysfunction in knowledge creation and moving beyond

Abstract

This chapter explains and critiques traditional and emerging metrics-based approaches to evaluation of research and researchers. The author argues that we need to move beyond questions of how to measure the impact of research to critique the logical flaw in the underlying assumption that impact is necessarily good. For example, the Wakefield study that falsely equated vaccination with autism is one of the most impactful studies of all time, by any measure; highly cited both before and after retraction, and arguably responsible for the return of preventable illnesses like measles. The University of Ottawa's collective agreement section on evaluation of research is presented as a suitable non-metric based alternative. This chapter is part of a critical study on Global University Rankings.