The cognitive and social structures, and publication practices, of the humanities have been studied bibliometrically for the past 50 years. This article explores the conceptual frameworks, methods,... Show moreThe cognitive and social structures, and publication practices, of the humanities have been studied bibliometrically for the past 50 years. This article explores the conceptual frameworks, methods, and data sources used in bibliometrics to study the nature of the humanities, and its differences and similarities in comparison with other scientific domains. We give a historical overview of bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2018 that studies the humanities empirically and distinguishes between two periods in which the configuration of the bibliometric system differs remarkably. The first period, 1965 to the 1980s, is characterized by bibliometric methods embedded in a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price Index, and small samples of journal publications from which references are used as data sources. The second period, the 1980s to the present day, is characterized by a new intellectual hinterland-that of science policy and research evaluation-in which bibliometric methods become embedded. Here metadata of publications becomes the primary data source with which publication profiles of humanistic scholarly communities are analyzed. We unpack the differences between these two periods and critically discuss the analytical avenues that different approaches offer. Show less
Hessels, L.K.; Franssen, T.; Scholten, W.; Rijcke, S. de 2019
This paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case... Show moreThis paper aims to explore disciplinary variation in valuation practices by comparing the way research groups accumulate credibility across four epistemic cultures. Our analysis is based on case studies of four high-performing research groups representing very different epistemic cultures in humanities, social sciences, geosciences and mathematics. In each case we interviewed about ten researchers, analyzed relevant documents and observed a couple of meetings. In all four cases we found a cyclical process of accumulating credibility. At the same time, we found significant differences in the manifestation of the six main resources that are part of the cycle, the mechanisms of conversion between these resources, the overall structure and the average speed of the credibility cycle. The different ways in which the groups use data and produce arguments affect the whole cycle of accumulating credibility. In some cultures, journal publications are the main source of recognition, but in others one can earn significant amounts of recognition for conference contributions or service to the academic community. Moreover, the collaboration practices in the respective fields strongly influence the connection between arguments and publications. In cultures where teams of researchers collaboratively produce arguments, it is more strongly embedded in the process of writing publications. We conclude that the credibility cycle can only be used as an analytical tool to explain the behavior of researchers or research groups when taking differences across epistemic cultures into account. Show less
Franssen, T.; Scholten, W.; Hessels, L.K.; Rijcke, S. de 2018
Over the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the... Show moreOver the past decades, science funding shows a shift from recurrent block funding towards project funding mechanisms. However, our knowledge of how project funding arrangements influence the organizational and epistemic properties of research is limited. To study this relation, a bridge between science policy studies and science studies is necessary. Recent studies have analyzed the relation between the affordances and constraints of project grants and the epistemic properties of research. However, the potentially very different affordances and constraints of funding arrangements such as awards, prizes and fellowships, have not yet been taken into account. Drawing on eight case studies of funding arrangements in high performing Dutch research groups, this study compares the institutional affordances and constraints of prizes with those of project grants and their effects on organizational and epistemic properties of research. We argue that the prize case studies diverge from project-funded research in three ways: 1) a more flexible use, and adaptation of use, of funds during the research process compared to project grants; 2) investments in the larger organization which have effects beyond the research project itself; and 3), closely related, greater deviation from epistemic and organizational standards. The increasing dominance of project funding arrangements in Western science systems is therefore argued to be problematic in light of epistemic and organizational innovation. Funding arrangements that offer funding without scholars having to submit a project-proposal remain crucial to support researchers and research groups to deviate from epistemic and organizational standards. Show less
Colavizza, G.; Franssen, T.; Leeuwen, T.N. van 2018
A long tradition of sociological research aims to understand the differences in the organizational and cognitive structure of scientific fields. This sociological tradition was in its earlier years... Show moreA long tradition of sociological research aims to understand the differences in the organizational and cognitive structure of scientific fields. This sociological tradition was in its earlier years intimately connected with the emerging field of bibliometric methods and applications, originated in the 1960s with the work of Storer and Price. However, the sociology of science and scientometrics have since the early 1980s drifted apart and attempts to reconcile them, or to reconcile the more theoretically inclined field of science and technology studies with scientometrics, have not had the desired effect. Recently, scholars have again argued for the need for interdisciplinary work bridging the sociology of science or science and technology studies with scientometrics. We take up these calls and explore ways to bridge the sociology of science with scientometrics by offering an operationalisation and empirical assessment of the rural and urban sociological framework by Becker and Trowler (2001). We compare ten specialisms from five disciplines: history, computer science, astrophysics, literature and biology, and study the connectivity properties of the bibliographic coupling networks of each. Our results show that the specialisms in the humanities possess a much lower connectivity, organising in many, smaller topics of research. They also show a lower reliance on shared core sources, contrary to the framework's predictions, suggesting that more theoretical and empirical work is required in order to fully characterise different specialisms of research. Show less
