publication . Article . Other literature type . 2015

Research “Values” in the Humanities: Funding Policies, Evaluation, and Cultural Resources. Some Introductory Remarks

Cinzia Ferrini;
Open Access
  • Published: 04 Feb 2015 Journal: Humanities, volume 4, pages 42-67 (eissn: 2076-0787, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: MDPI AG
  • Country: Italy
a reflection on the controversial issues of quality control, measures of research productivity, and funding decisions as key drivers changing the humanities (Section 2)
Persistent Identifiers
free text keywords: modernization, quality control, research funds, values, risks and needs, Academia Europaea, Humanities; modernisation; quality control; research funds; knowledge production; values, risks and needs; Academia Europaea, Democracy, media_common.quotation_subject, media_common, Sociology, Higher education, business.industry, business, Subject matter, Knowledge production, Social science, Modernization theory, Digital humanities, Humanities, lcsh:History of scholarship and learning. The humanities, lcsh:AZ20-999
Funded by
DIAbetes type 1 PRediction, Early Pathogenesis and Prevention
  • Funder: European Commission (EC)
  • Project Code: 202013
  • Funding stream: FP7 | SP1 | HEALTH
Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
65 references, page 1 of 5

1. High Level Group on the Modernisation of Higher Education. “Report to the European Commission on 'Improving the quality of Teaching and Learning in Europe's Higher Institutions'.” June 2013. Available online: modernisation_en.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2014).

2. Alessandro Cavalli, and Roberto Moscati. “Academic Systems and Professional Conditions in Five European Countries.” European Review 10 (2010): 35-53.

3. Timo Aarrevaara. “Academic Freedom in a Changing Academic World.” European Review 10 (2010): 55-69.

4. Michele Rostan “Challenges to Academic Freedom: Some Empirical Evidence.” European Review 10 (2010): 71-88.

5. Euroscientist Webzine. “Special Issue on Research Evaluation.” 29 January 2014. Available online: (accessed on 9 January 2015).

6. Arran Frood. “Mentors, mates or metrics: What are the alternative to peer review?” Special Issue on Research Evaluation, 29 January 2014. Available online: mentors-mates-or-metrics-what-are-the-alternatives-to-peer-review/ (accessed on 9 January 2015).

7. Francesco Sylos Labini. “Evaluation: Dogma of excellence replaced by scientific diversity.” Available online: (accessed on 9 January 2015).

8. Paul Keen. “'Imagining what we know': The Humanities in a Utilitarian Age.” Humanities 3 (2014): 73-87. [OpenAIRE]

9. John Armstrong. “Reformation and Renaissance. New Life for the Humanities.” Philinq. Philosophical Inquiries I (2013): 11-37.

10. Robert Pasnau. “Why Not Just Weigh the Fish?” The New York Times, 29 June 2014. Available online: (accessed on 3 September 2014).

11. Keith Thomas. “Universities under Attack.” The London Review of Books, 28 November 2011. Available online: (accessed on 3 September 2014).

12. Wim Blockmans, Lars Engwall, and Denis Weaire, eds. Bibliometrics. Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance. London: Portland Press, 2014.

13. Janna Degener. “Controversial and powerful: University rankings under scrutiny.” 4 June 2014. Available online: (accessed on 9 January 2015).

14. Onora O'Neill. “Integrity and quality in universities: Accountability, excellence and success.” British Academy Review 20 (2012): 41-44.

15. U-Multirank. “Universities Compared.” Available online:!/home? trackType=home (accessed on 4 September 2014).

65 references, page 1 of 5
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue