Quantifying ‘Output’ for Evaluation: Administrative Knowledge Politics and Changing Epistemic Cultures in Dutch Law Faculties

Abstract

In this article, we study the practices through which scholars in advanced administrative positionsin Dutch law faculties quantify the publications of their research groups for evaluation purposes.Our aim is to go beyond studying seemingly one-way effects of evaluation modalities on academicknowledge production and instead look at the ‘micropolitics’ of indicator use, that is, the specificways in which researchers embed indicators in their everyday practices. Metrics of raw publicationoutput provide seemingly clear-cut evidence about academic performance. However, our empiricalmaterial shows that such information can hide strikingly diverse quantification practices. Ratherthan passive reactions to externally-imposed administrative procedures, many of these practicesconstitute proactive attempts of individual researchers to pursue competing normative and epi-stemic agendas. Quantitative indicators to measure publication activity thus do not automaticallyresolve discussions about the nature of academic performance, but relocate them to an administra-tive setting characterized by specific rules of engagement.