Periodic Reporting for period 1 - MICROFOUNDATIONS (The Psychological Microfoundations of Knowledge Production in International Relations)
Période du rapport: 2021-09-01 au 2023-08-31
The MICROFOUNDATIONS project aimed to rigorously examine how judgments of research quality are formed within the academic community, and the implications this holds for knowledge production. It sought to uncover the cognitive and sociological factors that contribute to such judgments, including the role of stereotypes and prejudices. Understanding these factors is crucial for the broader society as it has implications for which research gets funded, cited, and built upon, thereby shaping collective knowledge.
MICROFOUNDATIONS is critical to not only scholars, but also to police makers and the civil society, foremost because of the societal value we place on expertise building, and more specifically its underlying mechanisms of objective, equitable access to research funding, academic positions, and publication opportunities. Biased judgments of research quality can perpetuate existing inequalities, systematically marginalising certain groups or perspectives. Consequently, these assessments affect not just the scholarly community but also the diversity and richness of the knowledge base that informs public policy, technological innovation, and social practices. Addressing this issue head-on serves the broader aim of making the academic enterprise as equitable, inclusive, and effective as possible.
The objectives of the project were three-fold. Initially, the project aimed to amass a comprehensive body of primary data focusing on cognitive and sociological variables influencing judgments of research quality. This initial step was fundamental, as it formed the basis for all subsequent investigative analyses. Following this, the second aim centred on a detailed examination of the role that stereotypes and prejudices might play in shaping these academic judgments. The importance of this objective lay in revealing any underlying implicit biases that could affect the academic evaluation process, thereby leading to inequalities. The final objective was dedicated to explore how academic perceptions of quality vary among scholars from diverse countries and cultural backgrounds. This investigation helped contextualise the overall findings within an international and cross-cultural framework.
The MICROFOUNDATIONS project utilised a mixed-methods approach, including survey experiments and semi-structured interviews with journal editors and scholars. The analysis showed not only that subjective biases do influence research quality judgments but also that these biases differ across various academic communities. This adds a layer of complexity, indicating that any interventions to mitigate such biases must be tailored to the unique cultures of individual scholarly disciplines.
In conclusion, the MICROFOUNDATIONS project has made a pioneering contribution to our understanding of research quality assessment. Its findings suggest that while the academic community is far from a meritocracy, nuanced, and context-specific interventions may be effective in reducing bias. It has thrown open the doors for further research to build upon these initial findings. By casting a spotlight on the often-unseen forces shaping academic evaluation, the project lays the foundation for a more equitable future—not just within academia but for society as a whole, which is ultimately shaped by the knowledge academia produces.
MICROFOUNDATIONS is critical to not only scholars, but also to police makers and the civil society, foremost because of the societal value we place on expertise building, and more specifically its underlying mechanisms of objective, equitable access to research funding, academic positions, and publication opportunities. Biased judgments of research quality can perpetuate existing inequalities, systematically marginalising certain groups or perspectives. Consequently, these assessments affect not just the scholarly community but also the diversity and richness of the knowledge base that informs public policy, technological innovation, and social practices. Addressing this issue head-on serves the broader aim of making the academic enterprise as equitable, inclusive, and effective as possible.
The objectives of the project were three-fold. Initially, the project aimed to amass a comprehensive body of primary data focusing on cognitive and sociological variables influencing judgments of research quality. This initial step was fundamental, as it formed the basis for all subsequent investigative analyses. Following this, the second aim centred on a detailed examination of the role that stereotypes and prejudices might play in shaping these academic judgments. The importance of this objective lay in revealing any underlying implicit biases that could affect the academic evaluation process, thereby leading to inequalities. The final objective was dedicated to explore how academic perceptions of quality vary among scholars from diverse countries and cultural backgrounds. This investigation helped contextualise the overall findings within an international and cross-cultural framework.
The MICROFOUNDATIONS project utilised a mixed-methods approach, including survey experiments and semi-structured interviews with journal editors and scholars. The analysis showed not only that subjective biases do influence research quality judgments but also that these biases differ across various academic communities. This adds a layer of complexity, indicating that any interventions to mitigate such biases must be tailored to the unique cultures of individual scholarly disciplines.
In conclusion, the MICROFOUNDATIONS project has made a pioneering contribution to our understanding of research quality assessment. Its findings suggest that while the academic community is far from a meritocracy, nuanced, and context-specific interventions may be effective in reducing bias. It has thrown open the doors for further research to build upon these initial findings. By casting a spotlight on the often-unseen forces shaping academic evaluation, the project lays the foundation for a more equitable future—not just within academia but for society as a whole, which is ultimately shaped by the knowledge academia produces.
From the outset of the MICROFOUNDATIONS project to its conclusion, the initiative embarked upon a multifaceted research agenda organised into several work packages (WPs). Each WP was meticulously designed to contribute to the overarching objectives of the project—understanding the scholarly cognitive and sociological variables informing research quality judgement, and examining correlates of stereotyping and prejudice in these judgements.
Work Package 1 (WP1) served as the foundational stage, encompassing the piloting and primary data collection phases. The valuable insights garnered in WP1 guided subsequent work, specifically in WP2 and WP3. WP1 also involved an initial evaluation of the ethical considerations and methodological strategies to be deployed in the project, including preparatory work for ethics clearance.
Work Package 2 (WP2) initially aimed to examine stereotyping and prejudices in quality judgement. Comprehensive interviews with journal editors, conducted between April 2022 and June 2023. These interviews employed a dual strategy: extensive online conversations complemented by interviews scheduled around academic conferences, thus serving both research and networking objectives.
Work Package 3 (WP3) focused on the international dimension of the research, gathering primary data from scholars in targeted countries such as Brazil, India, Turkey, and South Africa. This approach permitted valuable cross-tabulation of the collected data, facilitating a deeper understanding of the topics at hand. Due to the concurrent nature of WP2 and WP3, data collection and treatment for both packages were conducted simultaneously between April 2022 and June 2023.
The project's results are groundbreaking in many respects. It offers unprecedented insights into how diverse actors in knowledge production—including scholars, editors, associate editors, and department heads—understand, judge, and relate to research quality. This contributes substantially to the existing academic discourse and offers actionable insights for policymakers and institutional leaders in academia.
Additionally, an extensive training and career development plan was followed, encompassing both formal courses and practical experiences. This included the Fellow’s deeper integration with colleagues at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), involving presentations, participation in workshops, and supervising students.
Work Package 1 (WP1) served as the foundational stage, encompassing the piloting and primary data collection phases. The valuable insights garnered in WP1 guided subsequent work, specifically in WP2 and WP3. WP1 also involved an initial evaluation of the ethical considerations and methodological strategies to be deployed in the project, including preparatory work for ethics clearance.
Work Package 2 (WP2) initially aimed to examine stereotyping and prejudices in quality judgement. Comprehensive interviews with journal editors, conducted between April 2022 and June 2023. These interviews employed a dual strategy: extensive online conversations complemented by interviews scheduled around academic conferences, thus serving both research and networking objectives.
Work Package 3 (WP3) focused on the international dimension of the research, gathering primary data from scholars in targeted countries such as Brazil, India, Turkey, and South Africa. This approach permitted valuable cross-tabulation of the collected data, facilitating a deeper understanding of the topics at hand. Due to the concurrent nature of WP2 and WP3, data collection and treatment for both packages were conducted simultaneously between April 2022 and June 2023.
The project's results are groundbreaking in many respects. It offers unprecedented insights into how diverse actors in knowledge production—including scholars, editors, associate editors, and department heads—understand, judge, and relate to research quality. This contributes substantially to the existing academic discourse and offers actionable insights for policymakers and institutional leaders in academia.
Additionally, an extensive training and career development plan was followed, encompassing both formal courses and practical experiences. This included the Fellow’s deeper integration with colleagues at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), involving presentations, participation in workshops, and supervising students.
The MICROFOUNDATIONS project not only elucidated the cognitive and sociological factors that impact these assessments but has also scrutinised the often-overlooked role of unconscious biases and cultural variations. Prior to this project, much of the academic literature had approached the concept of 'research quality' as a somewhat objective and universally understood criterion. The project's findings challenge this assumption, suggesting that our understanding of quality is contextually bound and socially constructed.
The project holds several potential impacts of socio-economic and wider societal significance. First, the findings could influence how academic journals, universities, and funding bodies make decisions regarding what research to publish, promote, or finance. The exposition of unconscious biases and their impact on judgments can lead to more equitable and transparent processes, thereby mitigating the current inequalities in academia.
Second, the project can significantly affect policy-making, particularly in sectors heavily influenced by academic research. If evaluation processes are refined to minimise bias and improve quality judgments, it could lead to better-informed policies with more robust empirical foundations.
Lastly, the societal implications are vast. A more equitable academic environment that values diverse perspectives can lead to research that is more comprehensive and better aligned with the complex problems that society faces. Additionally, by improving the fairness of academic evaluation processes, the project could indirectly help tackle social inequalities by creating a more level playing field in academia.
The project holds several potential impacts of socio-economic and wider societal significance. First, the findings could influence how academic journals, universities, and funding bodies make decisions regarding what research to publish, promote, or finance. The exposition of unconscious biases and their impact on judgments can lead to more equitable and transparent processes, thereby mitigating the current inequalities in academia.
Second, the project can significantly affect policy-making, particularly in sectors heavily influenced by academic research. If evaluation processes are refined to minimise bias and improve quality judgments, it could lead to better-informed policies with more robust empirical foundations.
Lastly, the societal implications are vast. A more equitable academic environment that values diverse perspectives can lead to research that is more comprehensive and better aligned with the complex problems that society faces. Additionally, by improving the fairness of academic evaluation processes, the project could indirectly help tackle social inequalities by creating a more level playing field in academia.