Metrics and epistemic injustice
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2021-0240 |
| Published date | 10 May 2022 |
| Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Pages | 392-404 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Lai Ma |
Metrics and epistemic injustice
Lai Ma
School of Information and Communication Studies, University College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose –This paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the
consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach –First, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes
competition and social acceleration.Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture
reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysisdraws on works of
Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.
Findings –The use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables.
Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility
and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices;
at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.
Social implications –As metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is
reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and
research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in
research practices.
Keywords Epistemic injustice, Information, Knowledge production, Responsible metrics, University
rankings, Competition
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Publication- and citation-based metrics (hereafter “metrics”)[1] are not good or bad in-and-of
themselves. In bibliometric and scientometric studies, they are numbers that can shed light on
authorship patterns, research growth, the structure of scientific collaborations, as well as
gender and ethnic disparity in research productivity and performance. In research
evaluation, metrics are used in the decision-making process of recruitment, tenure,
promotion and funding (Langfeldt et al., 2020). Despite the problems of citation analysis
(MacRoberts and MacRoberts, 1996), it is generally agreed that metrics are reliable at the
aggregate level (Aksnes et al., 2019). The overwhelming significance of metrics in research
evaluation, however can compromise the validity of citation and publication data: when
metrics are gamed and manipulated, they are less dependable as indicators of research
quality and impact. Notwithstanding metrics are devised to be neutral and objective
indicators, the use and misuse of metrics in research evaluation can jeopardise the validity of
bibliometric and scientometric studies.
Problems and issues associated with the use of metrics have raised concerns about
research culture and research integrity. Weingart (2005) warns that “the academic culture in
which knowledge production thrived on a unique combination of competition, mutual trust
and collegial critique is being destroyed”(p. 128). The edited volume, Gaming the Metrics
(Biagioli and Lippman, 2020), documents misconduct and malpractice in research practices
JD
78,7
392
© Lai Ma. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create
derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://
creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 18 December 2021
Revised 27 February 2022
25 March 2022
Accepted 27 March 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 78 No. 7, 2022
pp. 392-404
Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-12-2021-0240
To continue reading
Request your trial