Notions of research quality are contextual in many respects: they vary between fields of research, between review contexts and between policy contexts. Yet, the role of these co-existing notions in research, and in research policy, is poorly understood. In this paper we offer a novel framework to study and understand research quality across three key dimensions. First, we distinguish between quality notions that originate in research fields (Field-type) and in research policy spaces (Space-type). Second, drawing on existing studies, we identify three attributes (often) considered important for ‘good research’: its originality/novelty, plausibility/reliability, and value or usefulness. Third, we identify five different sites where notions of research quality emerge, are contested and institutionalised: researchers themselves, knowledge communities, research organisations, funding agencies and national policy arenas. We argue that the framework helps us understand processes and mechanisms through which ‘good research’ is recognised as well as tensions arising from the co-existence of (potentially) conflicting quality notions.

中文翻译：

---

研究质量的共存概念：研究对良好研究的特定情境理解的框架

研究质量的概念在许多方面都与背景有关：它们因研究领域、评论背景和政策背景而异。然而，人们对这些共存的概念在研究和研究政策中的作用知之甚少。在本文中，我们提供了一个新颖的框架来研究和理解三个关键维度的研究质量。首先，我们区分源自研究领域（Field-type）和研究政策空间（Space-type）的质量概念。其次，利用现有研究，我们确定了（通常）被认为对“好的研究”很重要的三个属性：其原创性/新颖性、合理性/可靠性以及价值或有用性。第三，我们确定了研究质量概念出现、争论和制度化的五个不同地点：研究人员本身、知识社区、研究组织、资助机构和国家政策领域。我们认为，该框架有助于我们理解识别“优秀研究”的过程和机制，以及由（潜在的）相互冲突的质量概念共存引起的紧张局势。