Niespójność recenzji a wynik postępowania habilitacyjnego. Próba analizy w dyscyplinie socjologia

Abstrakt

The aim of the paper is to show the scale of preparing habilitation reviews ending with untypical conclusions and the impact of such reviews on the outcome of habilitation proceedings in one discipline – sociology. The general analysis of the outcome of the review comes down to the final conclusion; the detailed analysis proposed by the author also takes into account the degree of strengthening or weakening of this conclusion. In particular, the weakening of a positive conclusion may indicate that the actual evaluation of the work is rather negative and differs from the nominal evaluation. The article begins with a theoretical introduction in which the author analyzes the legal aspects of reviewing the achievements to the habilitation degree, the imperfections of this process indicated in the literature, and briefly refers to American and Polish research in the field of pragmatics of RPT reviews, which provide tools to interpret the mechanism of formulating unobvious conclusions. A study conducted on a sample of 130 habilitation cases in sociology from 2012–2019 showed that the results of the proceedings were rather consistent with the results of the reviews. Nevertheless, a set of “border proceedings” have been identified that have received reviews with a low degree of certainty (weakened) or some, but divergent, degree of certainty. In their case, the outcome of the proceedings was unpredictable, i.e. proceedings with the same review configuration ended in different ways.