Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics

The amount of annually published scholarly articles is growing steadily, as is the number of indicators through which impact of publications is measured. Little is known about how the increasing variety of available metrics affects researchers' processes of selecting literature to read. We conducted ranking experiments embedded into an online survey with 247 participating researchers, most from social sciences. Participants completed series of tasks in which they were asked to rank fictitious publications regarding their expected relevance, based on their scores regarding six prototypical metrics. Through applying logistic regression, cluster analysis, and manual coding of survey answers, we obtained detailed data on how prominent metrics for research impact influence our participants in decisions about which scientific articles to read. Survey answers revealed a combination of qualitative and quantitative characteristics that researchers consult when selecting literature, while regression analysis showed that among quantitative metrics, citation counts tend to be of highest concern, followed by Journal Impact Factors. Our results suggest a comparatively favorable view of many researchers on bibliometrics and widespread skepticism toward altmetrics. The findings underline the importance of equipping researchers with solid knowledge about specific metrics' limitations, as they seem to play significant roles in researchers' everyday relevance assessments

Normativity and Social Justice in the Analysis of Creative Labour

There has been a remarkable rise in studies of creative or cultural labour in recent years. Much of this research has emerged from cultural studies. Cultural studies writers have drawn attention to political questions of subjectivity that tend to be neglected in Marxian and other approaches to labour. In doing so, they have drawn, directly and indirectly, on post-structuralist concepts and assumptions. The author discusses these critical cultural studies approaches briefly in the first section of this article. The author’s claim is that, in spite of their important contributions, such studies lack clear conceptions of what might constitute good work, including good work in the cultural industries (which is how “creative labour” is defined here). This failure to offer an adequate normative grounding limits critique. To help fill this lacuna, the author then outlines research that emphasises concepts of autonomy and self-realisation as components of good work, followed by a post-structuralist critique of this research. This critique is questioned in order to suggest some of the limits of post-structuralist perspectives on work more generally. These debates in the sociology of work and organisations do not directly concern creative or cultural work, but they throw important light on it. In particular, they illustrate some of the problems of rejecting normativity in relation to labour. The final part of the article begins by claiming that debates about creative labour need to be considered as part of broader debates about the distribution of good or meaningful work across modern societies. Briefly referring to political philosophy’s treatment of work, the author suggests some ways in which attention to such issues might advance studies of creative labour