Scholar Profiles

I share these not for individualized or reactive quantification but for connection. See Pardo-Guerra (2022, p. 26):

In this adjudication, I argue that the problem posed by quantification is fundamentally the way it triggers reactivity: it is not the quantification per se, but the way disciplines collectively deal with the individualization of scholars’ professional worth. Having studied the practice and its implications for social science, I insist on the importance of rethinking our vocation, moving beyond devotion to scholarship as a calling toward devotion centered on academia as a lived, shared, multidimensional form of labor.

See also the older sample chapter version (inc. a tweet here).

And here, from his final chapter, Solidarities, ¶ in pp. 190-191:

Numbers can be equally liberating and oppressive. [ . . . ] Our unwillingness to reclaim imagination is our collective sin.

Reclaiming imagination is a centerpiece of my research, see the pull quote from Safiya Noble at my home page:

I work to defamiliarize and reimagine web search. [ . . . ]

As Noble (2018, pp. 181–182) writes:

Indeed, we can and should imagine search with a variety of other possibilities. [ . . .] Such imaginings are helpful in an effort to denaturalize and reconceptualize how information could be provided to the public vis-à-vis the search engine. [emphases added]

Back to Pardo-Guerra (2022), see also the final sentence in the penultimate paragraph, p. 194:

Why choose a vocation of the individual when we can build one of solidarity?


Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression how search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

Pardo-Guerra, J. P. (2022). The quantified scholar: How research evaluations transformed the british social sciences. Columbia University Press.

Tanczer, L. M., Deibert, R. J., Bigo, D., Franklin, M. I., Melgaço, L., Lyon, D., Kazansky, B., & Milan, S. (2019). Online Surveillance, Censorship, and Encryption in Academia. International Studies Perspectives.