Higher Education
from Cambridge University Press
This home for our digital textbooks, shaped by extensive feedback from librarians, students and instructors, provides easy, affordable access to eTextbooks, together with supplementary teaching and learning materials such as video and audio lessons, interactive texts, and infographics.
Users can • bookmark • annotate • highlight • cut and paste (15% by word count) • print (15% by page count)
Content • automatically resizes for mobile device display
• can be read both on and offline using our e-reader app
Accessibility is ensured via • adherence to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1
• an annual accessibility audit • accreditation from the Digital Accessibility Centre
Instructors can request examination copies, and can create group annotations to share with students.
Librarians receive valuable usage data, including COUNTER5 reporting.
Access is provided through an annual lease, either to individual titles or to collections that grow as new books are published. Leases allow for an unlimited number of concurrent users.
As higher education institutions prepare for a more digitally driven future, the structure and function of the site prioritize continuous accessibility for all, so that libraries are better equipped to support all patrons.
Find out more:
cambridge.org/highereducation
g
Unrealistic expectations The problem is, of course, there are a lot of unrealistic expectations around what metrics should be able to show and how quickly solutions can be found. And then there are the things that metrics just can’t tell us.
It’s not just that governments want to
find ways of improving the socio-economic return on investment from taxpayer-funded research, but part of a whole shift in the use of metrics in society, with league tables promising to show how an ever-increasing number of different types of organisations compare. In such an environment the notion that there may be limits to what can be meaningfully quantified, or the speed with which solutions can be found, is incomprehensible. Inevitably, it can also lead to a lack of
investment and dismay when reliable figures don’t come easily. As Adams noted:
“The big change, however, has been a widening in what people want to measure’”
‘There was an expectation, or wishful thinking, on the part of some people that, given time and pressure on academics and others, some ready answers would be produced, but really there has been very little serious investment in developing indicators. ‘Government is in no position to think about how such indicators might be developed, and how they might vary, and what’s realistic and appropriate. It must come back to the research community itself, but they are not going to do it unless there’s engagement with the government, and a dialogue about how this might work, what is significant and what the benefits are to the community. But no such engagement exists. ‘Instead we just have this hand waving
from government about “academics should be doing something about this, we’re looking for indicators, and people are expected to produce these things”, but that won’t wash. It’s got to be a much more engaged process before we get anywhere with this. It’s got to be recognised that there’s going to be differences, it’s not going to be one simple catch-all indicator that gets everybody.’ Adams continued: ‘People look for simple quick answers, and there is an important issue to tackle here about what research investment actually delivers for
the taxpayer, and the only way of assessing that properly is to put time, effort and resources in to actually develop a proper picture of the landscape and how it works. There is no quick fix. Governments aren’t in place long enough to take that seriously.’ Of course, as soon as a metric is
introduced, it can very quickly stop becoming a useful metric. There is a need for time to see how the research community responds to new metrics, with different institutions having very different budgets that are available for maximising any new metrics that might be introduced. As Roche noted: ‘If you take, for example, metrics and social reach and influence, the cynic might say the researchers with access to the best marketing budgets can optimise the chances of maximising reach. Does that really speak to the wider influence of the research, or does it speak to the better-funded researchers in the global north at research-intensive institutions having more resources they can put at their disposal to help tell the story?’
Moving on from simple numbers Although there are undoubtedly unrealistic expectations, there are nonetheless steps that can be taken, and are being taken, to get a better understanding of scholarly communications. As the scholarly publishing community has shown in the way it has responded to the numerous changes over the last 30 years, it can be very responsive to the needs of the community. As Roche pointed out, while at this point there’s unrealistic expectations around research metrics, there’s a
g
Jonathan Adams, chief scientist at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
@researchinfo |
www.researchinformation.info
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34
