Evaluation of Scientific Outputs with a Focus at Mass Communication – A Case Study from Slovakia

Extended Book Review/Discussion Paper

Abstrakt

The analytical-polemical extended book review loosely follows the earlier polemic initiated in the Czech journal Filosofický časopis and complements the descriptive contribution published in the Slovak journal Otázky žurnalistiky. In this way the issue of evaluating scientific outputs is being transferred in the form of a pars pro toto analysis to the field of journalism and mass media research, or mass communication. The main issues of the original discussion, which is relevant globally, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, were: who is responsible for (in many cases) the problematic current state of sciences, in particular, social sciences, and how should we evaluate (and categorise) the outputs of scientists. This contribution argues that the root of the problem is not neo-liberalism (or, for that matter, its twin – capitalism), but the often dysfunctional and, in many cases, largely formal system of (self-)evaluation of scientific outputs. Therefore, the solution lies in carrying out any chosen method of evaluating scientific outputs in a meaningful way. This also means application of a combination of assessment of academic outputs (i.e. use at least two of many appropriate assessment approaches simultaneously). Using the example of output from the field of mass media or mass communication, it is shown that only quantitative reporting of academic outputs (‘metrics’) is not sufficient. Moreover, only in the qualitative evaluation there is present the criterion of the usefulness of scientific outputs for society that should be taken into account. At the same time, in this way the statistical method of reporting scientific activity retrospectively is verified. In the end, this combined approach will also answer whether it makes sense for the society to finance any research or publication activity down to the level of a particular researcher. In this context, the contribution points to the problematic scientific and pedagogical value, and generally low social value, of a specific output in the field of the philosophy of communication, claimed to be a ‘scientific monograph’ originally intended as a theoretical guide for scientific research in the given area.