← Back to Home
About the Quiz
Research Foundation
This profiler draws on a synthesis of philosophical literature on research evaluation, including:
- Epistemic values from Kuhn (accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness) and Popper (falsifiability)
- Social constructivist perspectives from Longino and Polanyi on community practices
- Values-in-science frameworks from Douglas (inductive risk) and Kitcher (well-ordered science)
- Critical/emancipatory perspectives from Habermas's knowledge-constitutive interests
- Postcolonial critiques from Smith, Mignolo, and Santos on epistemic justice
- Evaluation reform movements including DORA (2012), Leiden Manifesto (2015), and CoARA (2022)
Detailed report: "Evidence for Multi-Dimensional Research Evaluation: Philosophy, History, and Global Practice" (2024).
The Five Dimensions
1. Epistemic ↔ Instrumental
Traces from Bacon's utilitarian vision through Popper's truth-seeking to contemporary debates about "impact."
2. Autonomous ↔ Accountable
Reflects tension between Humboldtian academic freedom and democratic accountability for public funding.
3. Universal ↔ Contextual
Captures debates between standardized metrics (h-index, JIF) and situated judgment (RQ+, narrative CVs).
4. Traditional ↔ Transformative
Spans Kuhnian normal science to decolonial calls for epistemological transformation.
5. Process ↔ Outcome
Distinguishes methodological rigor emphasis from REF-style impact demonstration.
Caveats & Limitations
- This is a heuristic tool, not a validated psychometric instrument
- 20 questions cannot capture full complexity of anyone's research philosophy
- Archetypes are illustrative ideal-types, not rigid categories
- Your profile may shift based on context (discipline, career stage, institutional setting)
- Results are meant to prompt reflection and conversation, not to label or constrain