Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0066733663 = product of:
  0.026693465 = sum of:
    0.026693465 = weight(_text_:von in 5018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026693465 = score(doc=5018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12806706 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04800207 = queryNorm
        0.2084335 = fieldWeight in 5018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6679487 = idf(docFreq=8340, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5018)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Noch ist die Welt nicht bereit, von der Droge »Wachstum« zu lassen. Aber die Diskussion über das Ende der Maßlosigkeit nimmt an Fahrt auf. Der Umweltökonom Niko Paech liefert dazu die passende Streitschrift, die ein »grünes« Wachstum als Mythos entlarvt. Nach einer vollen Arbeitswoche möchte man sich auch mal etwas gönnen: ein neues Auto, ein iPad, einen Flachbildfernseher. Ruckzuck steckt man im Teufelskreis aus Konsumwunsch und Zeitmangel. Und nicht nur das: der stete Ruf nach »mehr« lässt Rohstoffe schwinden und treibt die Umweltzerstörung voran. Dabei gelten »grünes« Wirtschaftswachstum und »nachhaltiger« Konsum als neuer Königsweg. Doch den feinen Unterschied - hier »gutes«, dort »schlechtes« Wachstum - hält Niko Paech für Augenwischerei. In seinem Gegenentwurf, der Postwachstumsökonomie, fordert er industrielle Wertschöpfungsprozesse einzuschränken und lokale Selbstversorgungsmuster zu stärken. Das von Paech skizzierte Wirtschaften wäre genügsamer, aber auch stabiler und ökologisch verträglicher. Und es würde viele Menschen entlasten, denen im Hamsterrad der materiellen Selbstverwirklichung schon ganz schwindelig wird.

4.700756E-4 = product of:
  0.0018803024 = sum of:
    0.0018803024 = product of:
      0.005640907 = sum of:
        0.005640907 = weight(_text_:a in 3805) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005640907 = score(doc=3805,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.055348642 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04800207 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 3805, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3805)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The research evaluation market is booming. "Ranking," "metrics," "h-index," and "impact factors" are reigning buzzwords. Government and research administrators want to evaluate everything -- teachers, professors, training programs, universities -- using quantitative indicators. Among the tools used to measure "research excellence," bibliometrics -- aggregate data on publications and citations -- has become dominant. Bibliometrics is hailed as an "objective" measure of research quality, a quantitative measure more useful than "subjective" and intuitive evaluation methods such as peer review that have been used since scientific papers were first published in the seventeenth century. In this book, Yves Gingras offers a spirited argument against an unquestioning reliance on bibliometrics as an indicator of research quality. Gingras shows that bibliometric rankings have no real scientific validity, rarely measuring what they pretend to. Although the study of publication and citation patterns, at the proper scales, can yield insights on the global dynamics of science over time, ill-defined quantitative indicators often generate perverse and unintended effects on the direction of research. Moreover, abuse of bibliometrics occurs when data is manipulated to boost rankings. Gingras looks at the politics of evaluation and argues that using numbers can be a way to control scientists and diminish their autonomy in the evaluation process. Proposing precise criteria for establishing the validity of indicators at a given scale of analysis, Gingras questions why universities are so eager to let invalid indicators influence their research strategy.