The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship

The paper interrogates how scholars and scholarship are evaluated in higher education, arguing that the prevailing reliance on narrow, quantifiable proxy measures (e.g., citation counts, impact metrics) is unsustainable and corrosive to academic culture, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. It contends that these systems obscure essential scholarly processes and collaborators, privilege outputs over practices, and reinforce a myth of the lone scholar. The authors, through the HuMetricsHSS initiative, propose three core interventions: (1) shift evaluation from products to processes of scholarship; (2) make visible and reward the diverse and collaborative labor underpinning scholarly work; and (3) engage academic communities to articulate, agree upon, and enact shared values that align institutional missions with scholarly practices. Though grounded in the U.S. context, the authors argue the approach is adaptable globally and necessary to counter a toxic culture of competition, time-pressured productivity, and alienation from core academic values.

The paper synthesizes critiques of metricized evaluation in HSS and beyond. It notes HSS’s misfit with citation-based indices (e.g., h-index) and REF-like regimes due to longer publication cycles, monograph centrality, and developmental editorial practices, with substantial portions of HSS work uncited. It reviews arguments that both traditional bibliometrics and altmetrics flatten context and cannot capture formative, pedagogical, or community-engaged impacts. The literature documents perverse incentives: citation gaming, cartels, p-hacking, image manipulation, coercive citation practices, and competitive, exclusionary cultures rooted in neoliberal ideologies. Studies (e.g., Niles et al., 2020) reveal a gap between scholars’ own values (readership, openness) and what they perceive peers and evaluators to value (prestige, metrics), shaping junior faculty behaviors. The paper engages proposals to move from “excellence” rhetoric toward process-oriented notions like “soundness,” while arguing for broader, values-based frameworks. It situates its approach alongside major reform efforts: DORA, Responsible Metrics/Metric Tide dimensions (robustness, humility, transparency, diversity, reflexivity), ENRESSH, EvalHum, and INORMS’ SCOPE model.

This is a conceptual and practice-informed essay drawing on the HuMetricsHSS initiative’s design work and facilitation of structured, values-focused workshops with faculty, librarians, administrators, and staff at research-intensive institutions. The approach involves: (1) diagnosing gaps between stated institutional values and assessment/reward practices; (2) co-developing locally contextualized values frameworks; and (3) mapping those values to scholarly practices, evaluation criteria, and decision processes. The paper presents illustrative cases rather than empirical datasets: - Michigan State University College of Arts and Letters’ Cultivating Pathways of Intellectual Leadership (CPIL), which reorients tenure and promotion from means (teaching, research, service) to ends (sharing knowledge, expanding opportunity, mentorship, stewardship) through formative mentoring and goal/values alignment. - A values-enacted, open budget request process at MSU’s College of Arts and Letters that used a collaboratively designed rubric (values alignment, student success, faculty retention, and resource/time constraints) to evaluate unit proposals, increasing collaboration and trust. The essay also develops a taxonomy of values-enacted indicators informed by existing metrics debates and aligned with institutional and individual values. It reviews and connects external initiatives (DORA, Responsible Metrics, ENRESSH, INORMS SCOPE) to the proposed framework.

• Current evaluation systems incentivize quantity over quality, obscure essential scholarly processes and contributors, and contribute to a toxic culture of competition, time acceleration, and alienation from values. - There is a documented disconnect between scholars’ personal values (e.g., readership, openness) and perceived institutional/peer values (prestige, metrics), which shapes behavior, especially among junior scholars (Niles et al., 2020). - Values-enacted approaches can realign evaluation with institutional missions and individual motivations, enabling richer recognition and reward of diverse scholarly practices (e.g., mentoring, peer review, community-engaged research). - Practical implementations (e.g., CPIL at MSU) demonstrate that shifting T&P conversations from outputs to values-informed goals and practices allows more textured narratives of impact and supports integrated scholarship. - An open, values-aligned budget rubric and review process increased collaborative proposals and trust among academic leaders, evidencing cultural change when values are operationalized in decision-making. - A taxonomy of values-enacted indicators is proposed: Expanded Scope and Deepened Focus Indicators (e.g., syllabus citations and time-on-topic as indicators of teaching engagement and impact; awards recognizing high-quality peer review); Vicarious Indicators (documented contributions to others’ success, e.g., mentoring outcomes, with safeguards to credit labor appropriately); and Values-Driven Quantification Indicators (locally agreed point systems to weight valued activities, such as department-level credit for peer review, mentoring, and service). - Complementary sector initiatives support and legitimize reform: DORA (nearly 1,400 organizations and 14,000+ individuals signed, disavowing journal-based metrics in personnel decisions), Responsible Metrics (Metric Tide’s five dimensions), ENRESSH/EvalHum (HSS-sensitive evaluation), and INORMS SCOPE (START with values; CONTEXT; OPTIONS; PROBE; EVALUATE).

By centering explicit, negotiated values and shifting attention from outputs to processes, the proposed approach addresses the core problem of misaligned incentives and the inadequacy of proxy metrics in HSS. It makes visible and rewards the collaborative and formative work that underpins scholarly quality, counters the prestige-centric competition that distorts academic behavior, and reconnects scholars with institutional missions and personal motivations. The identified taxonomy of indicators offers actionable pathways to evidence and evaluate values-enacted scholarship across teaching, research, mentoring, and service. Case illustrations show that embedding values in routine processes (mentoring, budget allocation, annual review, T&P) can alter local cultures, enhance trust and collaboration, and broaden what counts as quality. Positioning the framework alongside established initiatives (DORA, Responsible Metrics, ENRESSH, INORMS) enhances its feasibility and relevance, providing a bridge between policy principles and operational practices. Overall, the discussion argues that quality should be evidenced by how well scholarship embodies shared values in context, rather than by abstract, decontextualized metrics of “excellence.”

The paper contributes a values-first framework for reimagining research production and evaluation in HSS, advancing three interventions: focus evaluation on scholarly processes, recognize the breadth of contributors and practices, and ground assessment in explicitly articulated, locally negotiated values. It proposes a practical taxonomy of values-enacted indicators and demonstrates feasibility through institutional cases (CPIL; values-based budgeting). The authors argue that redefining quality as values-enacted purposeful work can transform academic culture, making it more humane, inclusive, and impactful for scholars, students, and communities. Future directions include: broader institutional adoption and iterative refinement of values frameworks; development and validation of context-sensitive indicators (e.g., syllabus analytics, peer review quality measures); safeguards against new forms of gaming; and longitudinal studies to assess cultural and career impacts of values-enacted evaluation.

The article is conceptual and practice-informed rather than based on new empirical datasets; examples are illustrative, not generalizable. Much of the context and cases derive from North American institutions, especially a U.S. research-intensive university, potentially limiting transferability without local adaptation. Proposed indicators (e.g., vicarious indicators, point systems) may be susceptible to gaming or credit misattribution if not carefully designed with reciprocal verification and transparency. Implementation requires sustained institutional commitment, ongoing dialogue, and contextual tailoring, which may be constrained by resources and existing policies.