more on databases and publications
nigel Vincent
nigel.vincent at MANCHESTER.AC.UK
Mon Apr 23 15:25:37 UTC 2007
A couple of quick points following on from Martin's comment on my
message. First off, just to be clear, the words he puts in direct
quotes -– viz "all that counted for reputational and career
advancement purposes was publications (whether in electronic or
printed journals), not the electronic or other resources that
underlie and give rise to them" – are mine not those of the NWO. I
believe they are an accurate paraphrase of the NWO's guidance on this
point but others might challenge that.
More substantial is the second point, namely the suggestion that
databases can be recategorised as 'publications' and that the fault
lies with us as a profession not the funding councils. It is
certainly possible either to redefine the term 'publication' or find
a more generic label to cover the things that we produce. The British
RAE chooses the latter course and invites all academics to choose
their four best 'outputs' within the assessment period. The term
'output' explicitly covers a huge variety of things in addition to
books and articles, e.g. databases, corpora, collections of
digitised manuscripts or other artefacts, films, symphonies,
recordings of concerts or of theatre performance, and many more. I
think, however, my point still holds. As I understand it, the NWO
will not admit any of these but only recognises books and articles
as evidence of scholarly achievement, and this is a policy decision
on their part that cannot be circumvented by redesignating things as
'publications' but only by tackiling head on, if we are so minded,
the issue of what kinds of work should count in evaluating the career
progression of academics and the success of academic departments (on
which sustained core funding depends).
The issue is not a simple one and I don't for a moment believe there
is unanimity out there. If the UK and the Netherlands represent two
extremes in this respect, where do the funding bodies of other
countries stand? At the individual level, I know very good linguists
(and not just in the Netherlands!) who believe the NWO stance is the
right one, and others who sharply disagree. My purpose was simply to
raise this aspect of the question for discussion.
Nigel
P.S. My apologies to Gideon for misspelling his surname in my last post.
Professor Nigel Vincent FBA
Associate Vice President for Graduate Education
Mailing address: School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL
United Kingdom
Tel: +44-161-275-3194
Fax: +44-161-275-3031
email: nigel.vincent at manchester.ac.uk
webpage: http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list