Opium in science and society: numbers and other quantifications

Abstract

In science and beyond, quantifications are omnipresent when it comes to justifying judgments. Which scientific author, hiring committee-member, or advisory board panelist has not been confronted with page-long publication manuals, assessment reports, evaluation guidelines, calling for p-values, citation rates, h-indices, or other numbers to judge about the ‘quality’ of findings, applicants, or institutions? Yet, many of those of us relying on and calling for quantifications may not understand what information numbers can convey, and what not. Focusing on the uninformed usage of bibliometrics as worrisome outgrowth of the increasing quantification of science, in this opinion essay we place the abuse of quantifications into historical contexts and trends. These are characterized by mistrust in human intuitive judgment, obsessions with control and accountability, and a bureaucratization of science. We call for bringing common sense back into scientific (bibliometric-based) judgment exercises. Despite all number crunching, many judgments—be it about empirical findings or research institutions—will neither be straightforward, clear, and unequivocal, nor can they be ‘validated’ and be ‘objectified’ by external standards. We conclude that assessments in science ought to be understood as and be made as judgments under uncertainty.