English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper investigates how the emotional responses towards research assessment reflect both social position and strategy in the struggle for scientific authority. This is examined through interviews with humanities researchers conducted as a part of a study on the implications for research practice of the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI). Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice and Scheer and Matthäus’ conceptualisation of the affective habitus and emotional practices, our research suggests that emotions can be conceptualized as strategic practices closely tied to the hierarchical position of the researchers. Established researchers deployed emotional practices as a form of resistance against compliance-based research assessment to retain their scientific authority and autonomy, while early-career researchers generally wanted to resist but their precarious positions did not afford them the possibility to do so. The study thus highlights the potential of studying emotions in relation to resistance and reproduction of dominance in higher education.

Research assessment, emotional practices, and the social hierarchy: what can you afford to feel?