The copycat paradigm

References

1. ANVUR
   ANVUR 2011 Valutazione della Qualità della ricerca 2004–2010. URLwww.anvur.org (accessed08.21.2023).
2. Baldwin, M.
   (2019) Peer Review. InC. Phillips (Ed.) Encyclopedia of the History of Science. Open-access encyclopedia hosted by Carnegie Mellon University. Available online athttps://lps.library.cmu.edu/ETHOS/article/id/29/
   [Google Scholar]
3. Banfi, A.
   (2014) Impatto nocivo. La valutazione quantitativa della ricerca ei possibili rimedi. Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico, 21, 361–384.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Besley, A. C., & Peters, M. A.
   (2006) Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of research quality. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(6), 814–832.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bonaccorsi, A.
   (2020) Two decades of research assessment in Italy. Addressing the criticisms. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 21, 1–17. 10.29024/sar.28
   https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.28 [Google Scholar]
6. Bortolotto, F., Fuochi, E., Paone, D. A., & Parodi, F.
   (2018) Sistema periodico: Il secolo interminabile delle riviste. Bologna: Pendragon.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bourdieu, P.
   (1988) Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brenneis, D., Shore, C., & Wright, S.
   (2005) Getting the measure of academia: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropology in Action, 12(1), 1–10. 10.3167/096720105780644362
   https://doi.org/10.3167/096720105780644362 [Google Scholar]
9. Capano, G.
   (2010) A Sisyphean task: Evaluation and institutional accountability in Italian higher education. Higher Education Policy, 231, 39–62. 10.1057/hep.2009.19
   https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2009.19 [Google Scholar]
10. Criteri VRA22 Area 11a
    Criteri VRA22 Area 11a (2022) Commissione per la Valutazione della Ricerca Sessione 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Giancola, O., & Colarusso, S.
    (2020) Università e nuove forme di valutazione. Strategie individuali, produzione scientifica, effetti istituzionali. Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dei, F.
    (2023) Le riviste di antropologia culturale in Italia: Problemi e prospettive. Dialoghi Mediterranei, 611, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
13. D’Eramo, M.
    (2001) The pig and the skyscraper: Chicago: A history of our future. New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fassari, L. G., & Valentini, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) I sociologi e la valutazione dell’università. Roma: Carocci.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Feigenbaum, A. V.
    (1991) Total quality control. New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
16. Freschi, A. C., & Santoro, M.
    (2010) “Symposium: Thinking Academic Evaluation after Michèle Lamont’s How Professors Think. Introduction.” Sociologica31: 1–7. 10.2383/33635
    https://doi.org/10.2383/33635 [Google Scholar]
17. Fumagalli, A.
    (2017) Governance della ricerca e sussunzione dell’apprendimento. InGeneral intellect (Eds.), Università critica. Liberi di pensare, liberi di ricercare (pp.51–59). Effimera-Il Lavoro Culturale.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Geuna, A., & Piolatto, M.
    (2015) Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while). Research Policy, 451, 260–271. 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.004 [Google Scholar]
19. Gershon, I.
    (2011) Neoliberal agency. Current anthropology, 52(4), 537–555. 10.1086/660866
    https://doi.org/10.1086/660866 [Google Scholar]
20. Giglioli, P.
    (1979) Baroni e burocrati. Bologna: Il Mulino.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gotesky, B.
    (1970) The pursuit of excellence. Educational Theory, 20(4), 406–416. 10.1111/j.1741‑5446.1970.tb00486.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1970.tb00486.x [Google Scholar]
22. Kockelman, P.
    (2006) A semiotic ontology of the commodity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 16(1), 76–102. 10.1525/jlin.2006.16.1.076
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2006.16.1.076 [Google Scholar]
23. Lamont, M.
    (2009) How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674054158
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054158 [Google Scholar]
24. Lombardi Vallauri, E.
    (2012) I guasti del referaggio anonimo. Il Mulino61(2), 289–295.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Morano Foadi, S.
    (2006) Key issues and causes of the Italian brain drain. Innovation19(2), 209–223.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Moss, D.
    (2012) When patronage meets meritocracy: Or, the Italian academic concorso as cockfight. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 53(2), 205–231. 10.1017/S0003975612000100
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975612000100 [Google Scholar]
27. Ong, A.
    (2007) Neoliberalism as a mobile technology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32(1), 3–8. 10.1111/j.1475‑5661.2007.00234.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00234.x [Google Scholar]
28. Palumbo, B.
    (2018) Lo strabismo della DEA. Antropologia, accademia e società in Italia. Palermo: Museo Pasqualino.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Pardo-Guerra, J. P.
    (2022) The quantified scholar: How research evaluations transformed the British social sciences. New York: Columbia University Press. 10.7312/pard19780
    https://doi.org/10.7312/pard19780 [Google Scholar]
30. Park, J. S.-Y., & Bucholtz, M.
    (2009) Introduction. Public Transcripts: Entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk, 29(5), 485–502. 10.1515/TEXT.2009.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2009.026 [Google Scholar]
31. Pinto, V.
    (2019) Valutare e punire. Una critica alla cultura della valutazione. Napoli: Cronopio.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Pollitt, C.
    (1993) Managerialism and the public service. The Anglo-American experience. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Poole, B.
    (2010) Quality, semantics and the two cultures. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(1), 6–18. 10.1108/09684881011015963
    https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011015963 [Google Scholar]
34. Readings, B.
    (1996) The university in ruins. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Rebora, G., & Turri, M.
    (2013) The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face. Research Policy, 42(9), 1657–1666. 10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.009 [Google Scholar]
36. Silverstein, M.
    (1976) Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. InK. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp.11–53). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Silverstein, M., & Urban, G.
    (1996) Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Shore, C., & Wright, S.
    (1999) Audit culture and anthropology: Neo-liberalism in British higher education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 557–575. 10.2307/2661148
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2661148 [Google Scholar]
39. Spier, R. E.
    (2002) The history of peer review. Trends in biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. 10.1016/S0167‑7799(02)01985‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 [Google Scholar]
40. Strathern, M.
    (ed.) (2000) Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Tsing, A.
    (2013) Sorting out commodities: How capitalist value is made through gifts. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(1), 21–43. 10.14318/hau3.1.003
    https://doi.org/10.14318/hau3.1.003 [Google Scholar]
42. Urciuoli, B.
    (2003) Excellence, leadership, skills, diversity: Marketing liberal arts education. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 385–408. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(03)00014‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00014-4 [Google Scholar]