This study investigates the development, implementation, and establishment of evaluation metrics within the mathematics research community in Chile, a discipline where the use of bibliometric indicators for quality assessment has been highly controversial. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study conducted focus groups with mathematicians at different stages of their academic careers and analyzed the ANID Mathematics Studies Group's method for assessing researcher productivity. The findings reveal that the evaluation metrics in mathematics remain in a state of “magmatic flow,” fluid and solid, constantly changing yet stable enough to articulate multiple social worlds. The study highlights the challenges faced in three closely linked spheres: mathematical research, science and higher education governance, and organizational management. The functioning of this metrics assemblage as boundary infrastructure, which meets the information needs of diverse social worlds while maintaining the integrity of the interests involved, is a temporal achievement of situated practices that provide continuous adjustment and stabilization. The study suggests that academic metric assemblages are made unstable through practical politics involving controversies and qualitative deliberation. Concurrently, they achieve stability through translation and blackboxing practices.
Abma-SchoutenRebeccaGijbelsJoeyReijmerinkWendyMeijerIngeborg. 2023. “Evaluation of Research Proposals by Peer Review Panels: Broader Panels for Broader Assessments?” Science and Public Policy50 (4): 619‐32. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad009.
AngermullerJohannes. 2017. “Academic Careers and the Valuation of Academics. A Discursive Perspective on Status Categories and Academic Salaries in France as Compared to the U.S., Germany and Great Britain.” Higher Education73 (6): 963‐80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0117-1.
ANID. 2021b. “Beca de Doctorado Nacional, Año Académico 2022.” Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo, Gobierno de Chile. 2021. https://www.anid.cl/concursos/concurso/.
Araneda-GuirrimanCarmen APedraja-RejasLiliana M. 2016. “Financiamiento por Desempeño en Chile: Análisis Conceptual de un Instrumento para la Educación Superior.” Formación Universitaria9 (3): 75‐86. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062016000300009.
12.
ÅströmFredrikHammarfeltBjörnHanssonJoacim. 2017. “Scientific Publications as Boundary Objects: Theorising the Intersection of Classification and Research Evaluation.” Information Research22 (1), CoLIS paper 1623. http://InformationR.net/ir/22-1/colis/colis1623.html.
13.
BrunssonNilsJacobssonBengt, and Associates. 2000. A World of Standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
BaranyMichael J.2010. “Mathematical Research in Context.” Dissertation submitted for the degree of MSc by research in, Science & Technology Studies, University of Edinburgh.
15.
BarronGary R. S.2021. “Rankings as Surveillance Assemblage.” In Global University Rankings and the Politics of Knowledge, edited by StackMichelle, 172‐94. Toronto Buffalo London: University of Toronto Press.
16.
Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional (Chile). 2018. Sobre Educación Superior. https://bcn.cl/2ciws.
17.
BogtTerHenkJ.ScapensRobert W.. 2012. “Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems.” European Accounting Review, 21 (3): 451‐97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.668323.
18.
BowkerGeoffreyStarSusan Leigh. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
BuschLawrence. 2013. Standards: Recipies for Realities. First paperback edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
CallonMichel.1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieux Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited by LawJohn, 196‐229. Sociological Review Monograph. London: Routledge.
22.
ClarkeCaroline A.KnightsDavid. 2015. “Careering Through Academia: Securing Identities or Engaging Ethical Subjectivities?” Human Relations68 (12): 1865‐88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715570978.
CortezMaría IsabelHersantJeanne. 2016. “Femmes et Mathématiques au Chili.” Synergies Chili12: 59‐71.
29.
CortezMaría IsabelVera-GajardoAndrea. 2022. “Now That We are Together: Biography of the Chilean Collective of Women Mathematicians.” In Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics: Fifty Years of Women in Mathematics: Reminiscences, History, and Visions for the Future of AWM, edited by BeeryJanetGreenwaldSarahKesselCathy. Vol. 28, 1079‐93. Springer’s Association for Women in Mathematics Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82658-1_91.
30.
FardellaCarlaCorvalánAlejandraZavalaRicardo. 2019. “El Académico Cuantificado. La Gestión Performativa a Través de los Instrumentos de Medición en la Ciencia.” Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad9 (2): 77‐103. https://doi.org/10.26864/PCS.v9.n2.15.
31.
Ferrer-SapenaAntoniaSánchez-PérezEnrique A.PesetFernandaGonzálezLuis-MillánAleixandre-BenaventRafael. 2016. “The Impact Factor as a Measuring Tool of the Prestige of the Journals in Research Assessment in Mathematics.” Research Evaluation25 (3): 306‐14. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv041.
32.
Fornet-BetancourtRaúlBeckerHelmutGomez-MüllerAlfredo. 1987. “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984.” Translated by J. D. Gauthier. Philosophy & Social Criticism12 (2-3): 112‐31. https://doi.org/10.1177/019145378701200202.
LamontMichèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
37.
LamontMichèleHuutoniemiKatri. 2011. “Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels.” In Social Knowledge in the Making, edited by CamicCharlesGrossNeilLamontMichèle, 209‐32. Chicago: London: University of Chicago Press.
38.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
39.
LatourBruno. 1993. The Pasteurization of France. First Harvard University Press paperback ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
40.
LimMiguel Antonio. 2018. “The Building of Weak Expertise: The Work of Global University Rankers.” Higher Education75 (3): 415‐30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0147-8.
41.
LimMiguel Antonio. 2021. “Governing Higher Education: The PURE Data System and the Management of the Bibliometric Self.” Higher Education Policy34 (1): 238‐53. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-00130-0.
42.
LuptonDeborah. 2016. The Quantified Self. John Wiley and Sons.
43.
MüllerMartin.2015. “Assemblages and Actor-Networks: Rethinking Socio-Material Power, Politics and Space: Assemblages and Actor-Networks.” Geography Compass9 (1): 27‐41. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12192.
44.
Pardo-GuerraJuan Pablo. 2022. The Quantified Scholar: How Research Evaluations Transformed the British Social Sciences. New York: Columbia University Press.
45.
PattonMichael Quinn. 2014. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
SantelicesBernabé. 2015. “Investigación Científica Universitaria en Chile.” In La Educación Superior de Chile: Transformación, Desarrollo y Crisis, edited by BernasconiAndrés, 409‐46. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile.
48.
SarricoCláudia. 2020. “Performance Indicators in Higher Education.” In The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, edited by TeixeiraPedro NunoShinJung Cheol, 2219‐22. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9.
49.
SayagoSebastián. 2014. “El Análisis Del Discurso Como Técnica de Investigación Cualitativa y Cuantitativa En Las Ciencias Sociales.” Cinta de Moebio49: 1‐10. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-554X2014000100001.
50.
SchlenkerJean-Marc. 2020. “The Prestige and Status of Research Fields within Mathematics.” arXiv:2008.13244 [Cs, Math], August. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13244.
SmolinskyLawrenceLercherAaron. 2012. “Citation Rates in Mathematics: A Study of Variation by Subdiscipline.” Scientometrics91 (3): 911‐24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0647-3.
53.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames R.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387‐420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.
54.
StarSusan LeighLamplandMartha. 2009. “Reckoning with Standards.” In Standards and Their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life, edited by LamplandMarthaStarSusan Leigh, 3‐24. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55.
StarSusan LeighRuhlederKaren. 1996. “Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces.” Information Systems Research7 (1): 111‐34. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111.
56.
UretaSebastián. 2014. “Normalizing Transantiago: On the Challenges (and Limits) of Repairing Infrastructures.” Social Studies of Science44 (3): 368‐92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43284237.
57.
ValenzuelaFernando A.Vera-GajardoAndreaDe Armas PedrazaTaniaNoackConsuelo DinamarcaHumeresFelipe Aguila. 2022. “Bichos Raros: Género y Subjetividades en el Campo de la Investigación en Matemáticas en Chile.” Psicoperspectivas. Individuo y Sociedad21 (2), 1‐13. https://doi.org/10.5027/psicoperspectivas-Vol21-Issue2-fulltext-2478.
58.
VélizDanielaMarshallPìo. 2022. “Influence of Global Rankings on Strategic Planning from the Perspective of Decision-Makers: A Case Study of a Chilean Research University.” Higher Education Quarterly76 (3): 638‐52. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12333.
59.
VenturiniTommaso. 2010. “Diving in Magma: How to Explore Controversies with Actor-Network Theory.” Public Understanding of Science19 (3): 258‐73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694.
60.
ZapataSantiagoTejedaIvo. 2020. “Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Chile.” In The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, edited by TeixeiraPedro NunoShinJung Cheol, 930‐42. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9.
61.
ZarcaBernard. 2011. “The Professional Ethos of Mathematicians.” Revue Française de Sociologie52 (5): 351‐84. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.525.0153.
