摘要：The use of indicators in research policy and evaluation is widely perceived as problematic. Responding to demands of explicit normative framings in STI governance, I propose an agenda for transforming the place and role of indicators in policy. Given that expert advice should not separate knowledge formation from decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and lack of value consensus, I argue that current scientometrics is too focused on technical issues, too reductionist and isolated from the contexts and values of its use. Using Callon’s analytical framework of ‘secluded research’ vs. ‘research in the wild’ I propose three moves for improving design and use of STI indicators. First, to continue ongoing trends towards pluralizing the data sources, processing and visualizations techniques, and expand the research communities involved in scientometrics. Second, to develop forms of quantitative evidence that can be contextualized with the participation of a more diverse set of stakeholders. Third, to open up the policy framings implicit in measurement, and use quantitative analyses to reveal more balance perspectives of existing and alternative STI options. I conclude by arguing that these shifts are necessary to preserve epistemic diversity and pluralism in the face of ongoing managerial push for standardization via ‘platforms’ run by commercial oligopolies.
简介：ISMAEL RÀFOLS博士，西班牙瓦伦亚大学教授，西班牙国家研究委员会终身研究员，莱顿大学科学技术研究中心客座教授，苏塞克斯大学科学与技术政策研究院高级研究员。研究方向为科技政策、文献计量学、知识图谱。近五年在Nature, Research Policy, Science and Public Policy, Research Evaluation, Journal of Informetrics, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Technological Forecasting and Social Change等期刊发表SCI/SSCI论文20余篇。荣获欧洲科学和技术研究协会Ziman奖，DRUID会议最佳论文提名奖，亚特兰大科学与创新政策会议William Page最佳论文奖,曾受邀作为美国国家科学基金会科学与工程顾问，生物多样性综合与分析中心科学委员会顾问。