Cet article analyse les prescriptions européennes en matière d'Open Science et évalue la mesure dans laquelle celles-ci contribuent à résoudre la contradiction qui leur préexiste entre les prescrits qui, au sein de l'Espace européen de la recherche, encouragent les chercheurs à ouvrir la démarche scientifique et les produits de la recherche à des parties prenantes extérieures, et ceux qui incitent à fonder les indicateurs de performance en matière de recherche sur les articles de revue savante internationale. A cet égard, la combinaison de la publication en OA avec l'archivage d'une diversité de produits de la recherche sur des répertoires OA s'avère préférable au basculement unilatéral dans la voie dorée de l'OA, par le biais de « big deals » avec les Majors. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published
The European Research Area (ERA) acts as an important provider of policy prescriptions inthe field of research and innovation, now fully integrating the social sciences and humanities(SSH) (Birnbau et al. 2017) and inspiring policy making at national and institutionallevels with regard to a diversity of thematic priorities (Commission 2012). European prescriptionsare of a political as well as a managerial nature, setting objectives to be achievedand prescribing managing tools to monitor the progresses made towards the completionof these objectives. Since the EU has until now never used the legislative power on whichit could rely, European prescriptions are mostly articulated through soft laws -, policy documentsand statements as well as, more indirectly, through the management tools of theERA and the rules that govern the research and innovation funding programs.On the basis of a qualitative analysis of these political and managerial prescriptions and afirst-hand quasi-participant observation of the European research policy making, we willshow how European prescriptions have contradictory implications for the evaluation of thediversity of research outputs that characterize SSH research and, more particularly, withregard to the types of SSH publications which have a particular potential to impact society.On the one hand, ERA has been strongly influenced in its prescriptive activities since the1990s by programmatic ideas such as the "mode 2 of knowledge production" (Nowotnyet al. 2003) and is increasingly supporting the "exoterization" of research beyond the traditional"esoteric" circles of the peers. Hence ERA prescribes that research activities willtarget – and even include in a "co-creation" perspective - a broader audience of innovatorsand citizens, through the use of concepts such as "societal challenges" – which constitutethe best funded of the three pillars of the current Horizon 2020 framework programme -,RRI ("Responsible Research and Innovation"), "Science With and For Society" or "CitizenScience". For ...
Recently there has been a growing scholarly interest on young researchers' challenges and struggles in academia, as well as on mentoring and career support and development issues. Based on 56 semi-structured interviews conducted with young scholars in social sciences and humanities in 14 European countries, this paper provides recommendations for early career investigator support. The set of recommendations includes advice for early career investigators themselves, for supervisors, for decision makers at higher education institutions and research institutes, for policy makers and funders and for peer reviewers. The major themes and trends identified across the interviews show that both individuals and institutions can play a major role in junior researchers' career building and development. ; Pastaruoju metu mokslinėje literatūroje vis daugiau dėmesio skiriama jaunųjų mokslininkų karjeros formavimo aspektams, mentorystės ir paramos karjeros pradžioje svarbai. Šio straipsnio tikslas – remiantis 56 pusiau struktūruotais pokalbiais su jaunaisiais humanitarinių ir socialinių mokslų tyrėjais iš 14 Europos šalių pateikti rekomendacijas jaunųjų mokslininkų paramai. Rekomendacijos skirtos patiems jauniesiems mokslininkams, jų moksliniams vadovams ir mentoriams, sprendimus priimantiems asmenims aukštojo mokslo institucijose ir mokslo institutuose, mokslo politikos formuotojams ir mokslinių tekstų recenzentams. Pagrindinės tendencijos, atsiskleidusios pokalbiuose, patvirtina, kad ir individualūs asmenys, ir institucijos atlieka labai svarbų vaidmenį formuojant ir plėtojant jaunųjų tyrėjų karjerą.
Acknowledgement: This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published
This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). ; In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda.
