Science and Its Significant Other: Representing the Humanities in Bibliometric Scholarship
Abstract
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, and data sources used in bibliometrics to study the nature of the humanities, and their differences and similarities in comparison to other scientific domains. We give an 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 differed remarkably. The first period, from 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 were 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 the metadata of publications becomes the primary data source with which publication profiles of humanistic scholarly communities are analysed. We unpack the differences between these two periods and critically discuss the analytical avenues that different approaches offer.
About the Authors
Thomas FranssenNetherlands
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)
Leiden, Netherlands
Paul Wouters
Netherlands
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)
Leiden, Netherlands
References
1. Ahlgren P., Pagin P., Persson O., Svedberg M. Bibliometric Analysis of Two Subdomains in Philosophy: Free Will and Sorites. Scientometrics, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 47–73.
2. Ardanuy J. Sixty Years of Citation Analysis Studies in the Humanities (1951–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2013, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1751–1755.
3. Ardanuy J., Urbano C., Quintana L. A. Citation Analysis of Catalan Literary Studies (1974–2003): Towards a Bibliometrics of Humanities Studies in Minority Languages. Scientometrics, 2009, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 347–366.
4. Bod R. A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns From Antiquity to the Present, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
5. Buchanan A., Herubel J.-P. Disciplinary Culture, Bibliometrics and Historical Studies. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librerian, 1997, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 37–53.
6. Buchanan A., Herubel J.-P. Using the Arts and Humanities Citation Index to Identify a Community of Interdisciplinary Historians. The Serials Librarian, 1997, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 85–98.
7. Budd J. Characteristics of Written Scholarship in American Literature: A Citation Study. Library and Information Science Research, 1986, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 189–211.
8. Chen C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–40.
9. Colavizza G. The Core Literature of the Historians of Venice. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 2017, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 14.
10. Colavizza G. The Structural Role of the Core Literature in History. Scientometrics, 2008, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 1787–1809.
11. Cole S. The Hierarchy of the Sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 1983, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 111–139.
12. Cole S., Cole J., Dietrich L. Measuring the Cognitive State of Disciplines. Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators (eds Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman), New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978, pp. 209–251.
13. Cozzens S. Taking the Measure of Science: A Review of Citation Theories. International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge, 1981, vol. 7, no. 1–2, pp. 16–20.
14. Cozzens S. Using the Archive: Derek Price’s Theory of Differences Among the Sciences. Scientometrics, 1985, vol. 7, no. 3–6, pp. 431–441.
15. Cronin B. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication, London, Taylor Graham, 1984.
16. Cullars J. Characteristics of the Monographic Scholarship of Foreign Literary Studies by Native Speakers of English. College and Research Libraries, 1988, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 157–170.
17. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of English-Language Monographs in Philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 1998, vol, 20, no. 1, pp. 41–68.
18. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of Monographs in the Fine Arts. The Library Quarterly, 1992, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 325–342.
19. De Rijcke S., Wouters P., Rushforth A., Franssen T., Hammarfelt B. Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use — A Literature Review. Research Evaluation, 2016, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 161–169.
20. Engels T. C., Ossenblok T. L., Spruyt E. H. Changing Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 2012, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 373–390.
21. Frost C. The Use of Citations in Literary Research a Preliminary Classification of Citation Functions. The Library Quarterly, 1979, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 399–414.
22. Garfield E., Malin M., Small H. Citation Data as Science Indicators. Toward a Metric of Science (eds Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman), New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978, pp. 179–208.
23. Gläser J., Laudel G. Governing Science. European Journal of Sociology, 2016, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 117–168.
24. Godin B. Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology: 1920 to the Present, London, Routledge, 2005.
25. Gross P. L., Gross E. M. College Libraries and Chemical Education. Science, 1927, vol. 66, no. 1713, pp. 385–389.
26. Gross P. L., Woodford A. O. Serial Literature Used by American Geologists. Science, 1931, vol. 73, no, 1903, pp. 660–664.
27. Guns R. et al. A Comparison of Cognitive and Organizational Classification of Publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 1093–1111.
28. Hammarfelt B. Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities. Research Assessment in the Humanities. Towards Criteria and Procedures (eds M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug and H. D. Daniel), Cham, Springer, 2016, pp. 115–131.
29. Hammarfelt B. Harvesting Footnotes in a Rural Field: Citation Patterns in Swedish Literary Studies. Journal of Documentation, 2012, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 536–558.
30. Hammarfelt B. Interdisciplinarity and the Intellectual Base of Literature Studies: Citation Analysis of Highly Cited Monographs. Scientometrics, 2011, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 705–725.
31. Hammarfelt B., De Rijcke S. Accountability in Context: Effects of Research Evaluation Systems on Publication Practices, Disciplinary Norms, and Individual Working Routines in the Faculty of Arts at Uppsala University. Research Evaluation, 2015, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 63–77.
32. Heinzkill R. Characteristics of References in Selected Scholarly English Literary Journals. The Library Quarterly, 1980, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 352–365.
33. Heisey T. Paradigm Agreement and Literature Obsolescence: A Comparative Study in the Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Journal of Documentation, 1988, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 285–301.
34. Hellqvist B. Referencing in the Humanities and Its Implications for Citation Analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2010, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 310–318.
35. Huang M. H., Chang Y. W. Characteristics of Research Output in Social Sciences and Humanities: From a Research Evaluation Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2008, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 1819–1828.
36. Hug S. E., Ochsner M., Daniel H. D. Criteria for Assessing Research Quality in the Humanities: A Delphi Study among Scholars of English Literature, German Literature and Art History. Research Evaluation, 2013, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 369–383.
37. Jones C., Chapman M., Woods P. C. The Characteristics of the Literature Used by Historians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 1972, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 137–156.
38. Kellsey C., Knievel J. E. Citation Analysis for Collection Development: A Comparative Study of Eight Humanities Fields. The Library Quarterly, 2005, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 142–168.
39. Kellsey C., Knievel J. E. Global English in the Humanities? A Longitudinal Citation Study of Foreign-Language Use by Humanities Scholars. College and Research Libraries, 2004, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 194–204.
40. Kreuzman H. A Co-Citation Analysis of Representative Authors in Philosophy: Examining the Relationship Between Epistemologists and Philosophers of Science. Scientometrics, 2001, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 525–539.
41. Kulczycki E., Engels T. C., Pölönen J., Bruun K., Dušková M., Guns R., Nowotniak R., Petr M., Sivertsen G., Starčič A. J., Zuccala A. Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Evidence From Eight European Countries. Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 463–486.
42. Larivière V., Archambault É., Gingras Y., Vignola-Gagné É. The Place of Serials in Referencing Practices: Comparing Natural Sciences and Engineering With Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2006, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 997–1004.
43. Leydesdorff L., Hammarfelt B., Salah A. The Structure of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A Mapping on the Basis of Aggregated Citations Among 1,157
44. Journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2011, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 2414–2426.
45. Leydesdorff L., Salah A. Maps on the Basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The Journals Leonardo and Art Journal Versus “Digital Humanities” as a Topic. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 787–801.
46. John Law. Posle metoda. Besporyadok i sotsial’naya nauka [After Method. Mess in Social Science Research], Moscow, Gaidar Institute Press, 2015.
47. Luukkonen T. Why Has Latour’s Theory of Citations Been Ignored by the Bibliometric Community? Scientometrics, 1997, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 27–37.
48. Moed H. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Dordrecht, Springer, 2006.
49. Moed H., Burger W., Frankfort J., Van Raan A. The Use of Bibliometric Data for the Measurement of University Research Performance. Research Policy, 1985, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 131–149.
50. Narin F. Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity, Washington, National Science Foundation, 1976.
51. Nederhof A. Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics, 2006, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 81–100.
52. Nederhof A. J., Noyons E. C. International Comparison of Departments’ Research Performance in the Humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1992, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 249–256.
53. Nederhof A., Zwaan R., De Bruin R., Dekker P. Assessing the Usefulness of Bibliometric Indicators for the Humanities and the Social and Behavioural Sciences: A Comparative Study. Scientometrics, 1989, vol. 15, no. 5–6, pp. 423–435.
54. Nederhof A., Zwaan R., De Bruin R., Dekker P. Productiviteit en Kwaliteit in Alfa-en Gammawetenschappen; Een Haalbaarheidsonderzoek, Den Haag, Staatsuitgeverij, 1988.
55. Nicolaisen J. Citation Analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007, no. 41, pp. 609–642.
56. Ochsner M., Hug S. E., Daniel H. D. Four Types of Research in the Humanities: Setting the Stage for Research Quality Criteria in the Humanities. Research Evaluation, 2012, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 79–92.
57. Ochsner M., Hug S. E., Daniel H. D. Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures, Cham, Springer, 2016.
58. Ossenblok T. L., Engels T. C. Edited Books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and Collaboration Analysis. Scientometrics, 2015, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 219–237.
59. Ossenblok T. L., Engels T. C., Sivertsen G. The Representation of the Social Sciences and Humanities in the Web of Science — A Comparison of Publication Patterns and Incentive Structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–2009). Research Evaluation, 2012, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 280–290.
60. Ossenblok T. L., Verleysen F. T., Engels T. C. Coauthorship of Journal Articles and Book Chapters in the Social Sciences and Humanities (2000–2010). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 882–897.
61. Petrey S. The Whole Mirth Catalogue. The French Review, 1980, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 117–121.
62. Price D. Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Non-science. Communication Among Scientists and Engineers (eds C. Nelson, D. Pollock), Lexington, Heath Lexington, 1970, pp. 3–22.
63. Price D. Little Science, Big Science… and Beyond, New York, Columbia University Press, 1986.
64. Rheinberger H.-J. On Historicizing Epistemology: An Essay, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2010.
65. Sile L., Guns R., Sivertsen G., Engels T. European Databases and Repositories for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Output, Antwerp, ECOOM & ENRESSH, 2017.
66. Sivertsen G. Data Integration in Scandinavia. Scientometrics, 2006, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 849–855.
67. Sivertsen G. Patterns of Internationalization and Criteria for Research Assessment in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 357–368.
68. Sivertsen G., Larsen B. Comprehensive Bibliographic Coverage of the Social Sciences and Humanities in a Citation Index: An Empirical Analysis of the Potential. Scientometrics, 2012, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 567–575.
69. Snow Сh. Dve kul’tury i nauchnaya revolyutsiya [The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution]. Portrety i razmyshleniya [Portraits And Reflections], Moscow, Progress, 1985, pp. 195–226.
70. Stern M. Characteristics of the Literature of Literary Scholarship. College & Research Libraries, 1983, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 199–209.
71. Storer N. W. The Hard Sciences and the Soft: Some Sociological Observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 1967, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 75–84.
72. Tang R. Citation Characteristics and Intellectual Acceptance of Scholarly Monographs. College & Research Libraries, 2008, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 356–369.
73. Thompson J. W. The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship. Libri, 2002, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 121–136.
74. Van Eck N., Waltman L. CitNetExplorer: A New Software Tool for Analyzing and Visualizing Citation Networks. Journal of Informetrics, 2014, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 802–823.
75. Verleysen F. T., Engels T. C. Barycenter Representation of Book Publishing Internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Informetrics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 234–240.
76. Verleysen F. T., Engels T. C. Internationalization of Peer Reviewed and Non-Peer Reviewed Book Publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Scientometrics, 2014, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 1431–1444.
77. Verleysen F. T., Ossenblok T. L. Profiles of Monograph Authors in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Analysis of Productivity, Career Stage, Co-Authorship, Disciplinary Affiliation and Gender, Based on a Regional Bibliographic Database. Scientometrics, 2017, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 1673–1686.
78. Verleysen F. T., Weeren A. Clustering by Publication Patterns of Senior Authors in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 254–272.
79. Weingart S. B. Finding the History and Philosophy of Science. Erkenntnis, 2005, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 201–213.
80. Whitley R. The Social and Intellectual Organization of the Sciences, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984.
81. Wiberley S. E. A Methodological Approach to Developing Bibliometric Models of Types of Humanities Scholarship. The Library Quarterly, 2003, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 121–159.
82. Wouters P. The Citation Culture. PhD thesis. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, 1999.
83. Wouters P. What Is the Matter With E-Science: Thinking Aloud about Informatization in Knowledge Creation. Pantaneto Forum, 2006, vol. 23. URL: http://pantaneto.co.uk/issue-23/.
84. Wyatt S., Milojevic S., Park H., Leydesdorff L. The Intellectual and Practical Contributions of Scientometrics to STS. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (eds U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. Miller, L. Smith-Doerr), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2016, pp. 87–112.
85. Zuckerman H., Merton R. K. Age Aging and Age Structure in Science. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (eds R. Merton, N. Storer), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 497–539.
86. Zwaan R., Nederhof A. Some Aspects of Scholarly Communication. Language, 1990, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 474–496.
Review
For citations:
Franssen T., Wouters P. Science and Its Significant Other: Representing the Humanities in Bibliometric Scholarship. Versus. 2022;2(2):24-69. (In Russ.)