Dialogue in or with the peer review? evaluating research organizations in order to promote organizational learning

Abstract

Evaluation or assessment of scientific work in universities and other research organizations has traditionally been organized around the peer review system with its almost jury-like functionality. This approach traditionally looked only at the output or the product of scientific work and was for many years, and to some extent is still, acknowledged as uniquely suited to the evaluation of something like scientific work. Today, however, the system is being questioned. A growing reliance on quantitative indicators in science policy, the changing relationship between science and society, and the emergence of theories of knowledge-based organizations have occasioned a rethinking of the peer review process. As a contribution to these discussions, this article presents a case study that can be read as an argument for a more dynamic and interactive model of peer review in the evaluation of research organizations. After presenting the case, it discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this suggested model. © Beech Tree Publishing 2010.