Paper short abstract:

Valuation practices have been enacted in institutionalised evaluations of research and higher education with different techniques and objects of valuation: two European case studies in the 1980s allow us to explore their marginality or centrality in the evaluation procedures.

Paper long abstract:

Evaluation of research and higher education is a form of valuation: it defines and assesses the value(s) of sciences and their organisation. This paper suggests investigating two historical case studies of the emergence of institutionalised evaluation procedures that target public institutions for research and higher education, in France and the Netherlands since the 1980s. A detailed analysis of these cases allows us to raise the question of the marginality of certain valuation practices.

The type of evaluation that, as we argue, emerged in the 1980s, could today be considered as a quite dominant form of (e)valuation, whereas, historically, peer review has been in such a position for (e)valuating science. When evaluation agencies were installed, they introduced themselves as an extended type of peer review, but they also mobilised valuation techniques previously less common and subsequently criticised in science, such as explicitly defined quality criteria and indicators.

In both case studies in the 80s and 90s, evaluation presented itself as a management tool, while its function as a valuation tool never appeared at the forefront. Evaluation was essentially self-reflection, for better management, for the sake of improvement and insuring better quality; the main announced objective was not to launch a redefinition of quality. Hence, valuation practices could be described as taking place "at the margins" of institutionalised evaluation procedures. The definition of evaluation criteria nevertheless conveyed certain values that didn't necessarily generate consensus among scientists: valuation practices have regularly been taken out of "the shadows" of evaluation procedures by their critiques.