lemonde.fr
France Abolishes HCERES, Shifting Research Evaluation to Peer Review
The French Parliament voted to eliminate the Higher Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (HCERES), due to concerns about its political ties and bureaucratic approach, shifting research evaluation to a peer-review system.
- How does the distinction between evaluating scientific work and evaluating public policy shape the rationale behind abolishing HCERES?
- Concerns about HCERES's close ties to the executive branch led to its dissolution. Critics argued that its bureaucratic approach hindered scientific and technical progress, exacerbated issues with student success, and fostered a low-quality private sector largely free from public evaluation. The new system prioritizes peer review for research evaluation, maintaining scientific integrity.
- What are the immediate consequences of the French Parliament's decision to disband HCERES, and how will this affect the evaluation of scientific research?
- The French Parliament voted to abolish the Higher Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education (HCERES), fulfilling a long-standing request from academics. This decision stems from concerns about HCERES's independence and its role in evaluating both research and public policy. The evaluation of scientific work will now be handled by researchers themselves, ensuring autonomy from political influence.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of replacing HCERES with a peer-review system for research evaluation, considering both its benefits and drawbacks?
- The elimination of HCERES signifies a shift towards greater academic autonomy in research evaluation. The long-term effects remain uncertain, but the change could lead to more robust self-regulation within academia while potentially decreasing transparency in public policy evaluations. This reform reflects a broader movement towards decentralizing control over research and higher education.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative frames the abolishment of the Hcéres as a positive step, emphasizing the benefits of academic autonomy and highlighting the perceived negative impacts of the Hcéres. The headline (if there was one) likely would reinforce this positive framing. The introduction focuses on fulfilling a widely expressed wish by academics and researchers, presenting this as a justification for the abolition.
Language Bias
The language used is strongly opinionated. Terms like "déclin scientifique et technique," "échec des politiques," and "qualité médiocre" are loaded and negative, shaping the reader's perception of the Hcéres. More neutral alternatives would include: 'decline in certain scientific and technical areas,' 'unsuccessful aspects of policies,' and 'areas needing quality improvement.' The repeated emphasis on the Hcéres's dependence on political power reinforces a negative portrayal.
Bias by Omission
The analysis lacks perspectives from the Hcéres or government officials regarding the reasons for its creation, its past performance, and the potential consequences of its abolishment. Counterarguments to the claims made about the Hcéres's influence and effectiveness are missing. The piece omits discussion of alternative models for evaluating research and higher education.
False Dichotomy
The text presents a false dichotomy between evaluating scientific work (which should be done by peers) and evaluating public policies (which should be independent from political influence). It doesn't explore potential models that might blend these aspects.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the abolishment of the Hcéres, an evaluation body for higher education and research. The text argues that the current system, influenced by political pressures, negatively impacts the quality of education and research. Removing this influence and allowing for evaluation by active researchers will improve the quality of education and promote academic freedom, which are central to SDG 4 (Quality Education).