Technical rationality in the prioritization of university research projects: a critical analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35622/Keywords:
university research, cognitive justice, project prioritization, technical rationalityAbstract
This study presents a critical analysis of technical rationality in the prioritization of research projects. It followed a qualitative approach under the socio-critical paradigm, with a descriptive design, and was conducted at two Ecuadorian universities. The methodological strategies included qualitative synthesis through document review and interviews based on an expert-validated protocol. Data were processed through qualitative systematization and content analysis. The results indicate that the selection of research projects is guided by metric, quantifiable criteria and strategic agendas that favor fields capable of producing measurable outputs, while leaving aside the social sciences and humanities. This makes it possible to determine that discourses of technical neutrality conceal institutional power relations. It is concluded that this model weakens the social function of the university and prioritizes measurable outcomes over ethical and critical reflection. The study proposes moving toward prioritization models that integrate comprehensive management with social dimensions of equity and cognitive justice.
References
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194-1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. En J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood.
Castro-Rodríguez, Y. (2023). Las sociedades científicas estudiantiles y los semilleros de investigación, definiciones, objetivos, roles y organización. Investigación en Educación Médica, 12(46), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.22201/fm.20075057e.2023.46.22491
Córdoba, L., Rovelli, L., & Vommaro, P. (2021). Política, gestión y evaluación de la investigación y la vinculación en América Latina y el Caribe. CLACSO. https://www.clacso.org/politica-gestion-y-evaluacion-de-la-investigacion-y-la-vinculacion-en-america-latina-y-el-caribe/
Duque, J. F. (2021). A comparative analysis of the Chilean and Colombian systems of quality assurance in higher education. Higher Education, 82(3), 669-683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00633-z
Gutiérrez, G., Yaguarema, M., Ayala, M., Zambrano R., J., & Gutiérrez, L. (2023). Impact of government evaluation and accreditation processes on the research output of universities in developing countries: an X-ray of the young Ecuadorian academia. Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1093083
Habermas, J. (1987). Teoría de la acción comunicativa (Vol. 2). Crítica de la razón funcionalista. Taurus.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Hillebrandt, M., & Huber, M. (2020). Quantifying Higher Education: Governing Universities and Academics by Numbers. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2585
Huanca-Guanca, J. C., & Portal-Gallardo, J. A. (2023). Análisis de contenido cuantitativo sobre gestión del conocimiento en instituciones de educación superior latinoamericanas. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 23(1), 312–346. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v23i1.51513
Kavka, J. (2017). Neoliberalización variada en la educación superior: respuestas ambivalentes a la financiación competitiva en la República Checa. En Universities in the Neoliberal Era (pp. 95-117). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55212-9_5
Kivistö, J., & Vellamo, T. (2023). Higher Education Policy: Autonomy and Accountability (pp. 215-229). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34862-4_13
Krzeski, J., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking. Research Evaluation, 31(3), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac011
Langfeldt, L., Guldbrandsen, M., Sivertsen, G., Oravec, J., Aksnes, D. W., Jacobsen, B. N., Stensaker, B., & de Rijcke, S. (2021). The role of metrics in peer assessments. Research Evaluation, 30(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa032
Lawrence, M., & Rezai-Rashti, G. M. (2022). Pursuing Neoliberal Performativity? Performance-Based Funding and Accountability in Higher Education in Ontario, Canada (pp. 149-167). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83136-3_10
Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523
Medina Colina, I. M., & Quintero Romero, S. B. (2025). La epistemología del sur De Sousa Santos: un marco para el fortalecimiento de las organizaciones comunitarias. Qualitas Revista Científica, 30(30), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.55867/qual30.07
Mejía-González, L. P., Cujia-Berrío, S. E., & Liñan-Cuello, Y. I. (2022). Políticas educativas en América Latina: Del modelo economicista a la educación para la sustentabilidad. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia (RVG), 27(100), 1489–1501. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8890765
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2022). Higher education and the SDGs. UNESCO. https://cutt.ly/ntIw0sqQ
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. (2020). Resourcing higher education: Challenges, choices and consequences. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en
Pedersen, D. B., Grønvad, J. F., & Hvidtfeldt, R. (2020). Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz033
Pitsoe, V., & Maila, M. (2013). Re-thinking Teacher Professional Development through Schön’s Reflective Practice and Situated Learning Lenses. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p211
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, C., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., Primeri, E., Puigvert, L., Scharnhorst, A., Schubert, A., Soós, S., Sordé-Martí, T., Travis, C., & Van Horik, R. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx02
Taber, K. S. (2023). Curriculum and science. En International Encyclopedia of Education (4.ª ed., pp. 314-326). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.03057-8
Tijdink, J. K., Valkenburg, G., de Rijcke, S., & jhz. (2023). Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: a focus group study. Center for Open Science (COS). https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/exskq
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.
Williams, K. (2020). Playing the fields: Theorizing research impact and its assessment. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa001
Yadigarova, L. (2024). Factors affecting research productivity of higher education institutions. Scientific Works, 91(1), 71-76. https://doi.org/10.69682/azrt.2024.91(1).71-76
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Graciela Sosa-Bueno, Flor Celi-Carrión (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
