Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.63.3.3
Responsibility Without Support: A Phenomenological Inquiry into the Croatian Academic System
Marija Brajdić Vuković
orcid.org/0000-0002-3619-9520
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Ivan Tranfić
orcid.org/0000-0002-9973-9272
; Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu, Hrvatska
Marita Grubišić-Čabo
; The Productive Company Inc., Zagreb, Hrvatska
Sažetak
This paper examines the paradox of “responsibility without support” in contemporary Croatian
academia: researchers are increasingly required to demonstrate transparency, measurability, and
social impact, while the collegial and institutional conditions that would enable such responsibility
are simultaneously eroding. The theoretical framework connects Whitley’s typology of
“strong” and “weak” research evaluation systems with the distinction between enabling and
constraining structures of academic work, as well as debates on plural regimes of valuation and
epistemic living spaces. Empirically, the study is based on a phenomenological interpretation
of 24 in-depth interviews with researchers from the natural, technical, social, and biomedical
sciences. The findings point to a threefold tension: (1) between the inner ethics of scientific
work and external evaluative demands, (2) between the need for trust and logic of surveillance,
and (3) between intrinsic scientific values and extrinsic metrics. Responsibility is internalized
as a moral imperative accompanied by a pronounced emotional cost—guilt, exhaustion, and
ambivalence—yet it simultaneously gives rise to micro-practices of resilience, such as mentorship,
pedagogical relations, collaboration, and the cultivation of curiosity. The paper makes three
main contributions: it conceptualizes responsibility without support as a diagnostic category
within the moral economy of science; it connects macro-level evaluation policies with microlevel
experiences through the concept of epistemic living spaces; and, based on the interpretation
of the findings, it discusses implications for the recalibration of research evaluation systems,
including the pluralization of criteria, administrative relief, the institutionalization of care, and
the development of stable channels of dialogue. While the study is limited by its qualitative,
interpretative design and the specificity of the current reform context, it offers high analytical
transferability, with patterns that are recognizable across other “strong” evaluation regimes.
Ključne riječi
academic responsibility; research evaluation regimes; evaluation pressures; moral economy of science; phenomenological analysis
Hrčak ID:
344791
URI
Datum izdavanja:
27.1.2026.
Posjeta: 661 *