Наука и ее значимый другой: представление гуманитарных наук в наукометрических исследованиях

Перевод с английского Алексея Снигирова по изданию: Franssen T., Wouters P. Science and Its Significant Other: Representing the Humanities in Bibliometric Scholarship // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2019. Vol. 70. № 10. P. 1124–1137.
© 2019 Thomas Franssen, Paul Wouters. Статья распространяется на основе публичной лицензии Creative Commons (СС-BY-NC).

Когнитивные и социальные структуры, а также практики публикации в гуманитарных науках библиометрически измерялись в течение последних пятидесяти лет. В этой статье исследуются концептуальные рамки, методы и источники данных, используемые в библиометрии для изучения природы гуманитарных наук, их отличия от других научных областей и сходства с ними. Мы даем исторический обзор библиометрических исследований, которые были посвящены эмпирическому изучению гуманитарных наук с 1965 по 2018 год, и выделяем два периода, в которых конфигурации библиометрической системы заметно различаются. Первый период, с 1965 по 1980-е годы, характеризуется библиометрическими методами, встроенными в теоретическую социологическую основу, разработкой и использованием индекса Прайса и небольшими выборками журнальных публикаций, ссылки в которых используются в качестве источников данных. Второй период, с 1980-х годов по настоящее время, характеризуется тем, что базируется на новой интеллектуальной основе — научной политике и оценке исследований, — в которые встроены библиометрические методы. Здесь метаданные публикаций становятся тем первичным источником данных, с помощью которых анализируются публикационные профили гуманитарных научных сообществ. Наиболее значительным изменением между этими двумя периодами является изменение стоящего за работой ученых внутреннего концептуального основания, на котором выстраиваются библиометрические исследования. В течение первого периода библиометрические исследования базируются на теоретической основе, выводимой из социологии науки. Ситуация меняется в начале 1980-х годов, когда библиометрические методы все чаще используются в контексте научной политики и оценки исследований.

1. Cole S. The Hierarchy of the Sciences? // American Journal of Sociology. 1983. Vol. 89. № 1. P. 111–139.

2. Cole S. et al. Measuring the Cognitive State of Disciplines // Toward a Metric of Science: The advent of Science Indicators / Y. Elkana et al. (eds). N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. P. 209–251.

3. Fanelli D., Glänzel W. Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences // PLoS One. 2013. № 8(6).

4. Price D. Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Non-Science // Communication Among Scientists and Engineers / C. Nelson, D. Pollock (eds). Lexington, KY: Heath Lexington, 1970. P. 3–22.

5. Storer N. W. The Hard Sciences and the Soft: Some Sociological Observations // Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 1967. Vol. 55. № 1. P. 75–84.

6. Zuckerman H., Merton R. K. Age Aging and Age Structure in Science // The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations / R. Merton, N. Storer (eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. P. 497–539.

7. Zwaan R., Nederhof A. Some Aspects of Scholarly Communication // Language. 1990. Vol. 84. № 3. P. 474–496.

8. Ardanuy J. et al. A Citation Analysis of Catalan Literary Studies (1974–2003): Towards a Bibliometrics of Humanities Studies in Minority Languages // Scientometrics. 2009. Vol. 81. № 2. P. 347–366.

9. Budd J. Characteristics of Written Scholarship in American Literature: A Citation Study // Library and Information Science Research. 1986. № 8(2). P. 189–211.

10. Coffey D. P. A Discipline’s Composition: A Citation Analysis of Composition Studies // The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2006. № 32. P. 155–165.

11. Cullars J. Characteristics of the Monographic Literature of British and American Literary Studies // College and Research Libraries. 1985. Vol. 46. № 2. P. 511–522.

12. Cullars J. Characteristics of the Monographic Scholarship of Foreign Literary Studies by Native Speakers of English // College and Research Libraries. 1988. Vol. 49. № 2. P. 157–170.

13. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of French and German Literary Monographs // The Library Quarterly. 1989. Vol. 59. № 4. P. 305–325.

14. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of Italian and Spanish Literary Monographs // The Library Quarterly. 1990. Vol. 60. № 4. P. 337–356.

15. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of Monographs in the Fine Arts // The Library Quarterly. 1992. Vol. 62. № 3. P. 325–342.

16. Cullars J. Citation Characteristics of English-Language Monographs in Philosophy // Library & Information Science Research. 1998. № 20(1). P. 41–68.

17. Frost C. The Use of Citations in Literary Research a Preliminary Classifiсation of Citation Functions // The Library Quarterly. 1979. Vol. 49. № 4. P. 399–414.

18. Hammarfelt B. Harvesting Footnotes in a Rural Field: Citation Patterns in Swedish Literary Studies // Journal of Documentation. 2012. Vol. 68. № 4. P. 536–558.

19. Hammarfelt B. Interdisciplinarity and the Intellectual Base of Literature Studies: Citation Analysis of Highly Cited Monographs // Scientometrics. 2011. Vol. 86. № 3. P. 705–725.

20. Heinzkill R. Characteristics of References in Selected Scholarly English Literary Journals // The Library Quarterly. 1980. Vol. 50. № 3. P. 352–365.

21. Heisey T. Paradigm Agreement and Literature Obsolescence: A Comparative Study in the Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls // Journal of Documentation. 1988. Vol. 22. № 3. P. 266–268.

22. Hellqvist B. Referencing in the Humanities and Its Implications for Citation Analysis // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2010. Vol. 61. № 2. P. 310–318.

23. Herubel J.-P. The Nature of Three History Journals: A Citation Experiment // Collection Management. 1990. Vol. 12. № 3/4. P. 37–41.

24. Jones C. et al. The Characteristics of the Literature Used by Historians // Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 1972. Vol. 4. № 3. P. 137–156.

25. Kellsey C., Knievel J. E. Citation Analysis for Collection Development: A Comparative Study of Eight Humanities Fields the Characteristics of the Literature Used by Historians // The Library Quarterly. 2005. Vol. 75. № 2. P. 142–168.

26. 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. № 3. P. 194–204.

27. Larivière V. et al. 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. № 8. P. 997–1004.

28. McCain K. W. Citation Patterns in the History of Technology // Library and Information Science Research. 1987. Vol. 9. № 1. P. 41–59.

29. Nolen D. S., Richardson H. A. H. The Search for Landmark Works in English Literary Studies: A Citation Analysis // Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2016. Vol. 42. № 4. P. 453–458.

30. Stern M. Characteristics of the Literature of Literary Scholarship // College & Research Libraries. 1983. Vol. 44. № 4. P. 199–209.

31. Tang R. Citation Characteristics and Intellectual Acceptance of Scholarly Monographs // College & Research Libraries. 2008. Vol. 69. № 4. P. 356–369.

32. Thompson J. W. The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship // Libri. 2002. Vol. 52. № 3. P. 121–136.

33. Wiberley S. E. A Methodological Approach to Developing Bibliometric Models of Types of Humanities Scholarship // The Library Quarterly. 2003. Vol. 73. № 2. P. 121–159.

34. Zwaan R., Nederhof A. Some Aspects of Scholarly Communication // Language. 1990. Vol. 84. № 3. P. 474–496.

35. Al U. et al. Arts and Humanities Literature: Bibliometric Characteristics of Contributions by Turkish Authors // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2006. Vol. 57. № 8. P. 1011–1022.

36. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z. et al. What Factors Affect the Visibility of Argentinean Publications in Humanities and Social Sciences in Scopus? Some Evidence Beyond the Geographic Realm of Research // Scientometrics. 2015. Vol. 102. № 1. P. 789–810.

37. Nederhof A. Bibliometric Monitoring of Research Performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 66. № 1. P. 81–100.

38. 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. № 3. P. 249–256.

39. Nederhof A. et al. Assessing the Usefulness of Bibliometric Indicators for the Humanities and the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Comparative Study // Scientometrics. 1989. Vol. 15. № 5–6. P. 423–435.

40. Van Leeuwen T. Bibliometric Research Evaluations, Web of Science and the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Problematic Relationship? // BibliometriePraxis und Forschung. 2013. № 2. P. 1–18.

41. Ahlgren P. et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Two Subdomains in Philosophy: Free Will and Sorites // Scientometrics. 2015. Vol. 103. № 1. P. 47–73.

42. Buchanan A., Herubel J.-P. Disciplinary Culture, Bibliometrics and Historical Studies // Behavioral and Social Sciences Librerian. 1997. Vol. 15. № 2. P. 37–53.

43. Colavizza G. The Core Literature of the Historians of Venice // Frontiers in Digital Humanities. 2017. Vol. 4. № 3. P. 14.

44. Colavizza G. The Structural Role of the Core Literature in History // Scientometrics. 2008. Vol. 113. № 3. P. 1787–1809.

45. Herubel J.-P., Goedeken E. Using the Arts and Humanities Citation Index to Identify a Community of Interdisciplinary Historians // The Serials Librarian. 2001. Vol. 41. № 1. P. 85–98.

46. Kreuzman H. A Co-citation Analysis of Representative Authors in Philosophy: Examining the Relationship Between Epistemologists and Philosophers of Science // Scientometrics. 2001. Vol. 51. № 3. P. 525–539.

47. Larivière V., Gingras Y. and Archambault 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. № 8. P. 997–1004.

48. Leydesdorff L. et al. The Structure of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: A Mapping on the Basis of Aggregated Citations Among 1157 Journals // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 2011. Vol. 62. № 12. P. 2414–2426.

49. 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. № 4. P. 787–801.

50. Weingart S. B. Finding the History and Philosophy of Science // Erkenntnis. 2005. Vol. 80. № 1. P. 201–213.

51. Engels T. C. et al. Changing Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009 // Scientometrics. 2012. Vol. 93. № 2. P. 373–390.

52. Guns R. et al. A Comparison of Cognitive and Organizational Classification of Publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities // Scientometrics. 2018. Vol. 116. № 2. P. 1093–1111.

53. 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. № 1. P. 63–77.

54. Kulczycki E. et al. Publication Patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Evidence From Eight European Countries // Scientometrics. 2018. Vol. 116. № 1. P. 463–486.

55. Kyvik S. Changing Trends in Publishing Behaviour Among University Faculty, 1980–2000 // Scientometrics. 2003. Vol. 58. № 1. P. 35–48.

56. Ossenblok T. L., Engels T. C. Edited Books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and Collaboration Analysis // Scientometrics. 2015. Vol. 104. № 1. P. 219–237.

57. Ossenblok T. L. et al. Book Editors in the Social Sciences and Humanities: An Analysis of Publication and Collaboration Patterns of Established Researchers in Flanders // Learned Publishing. 2015. Vol. 28. № 4. P. 261–273.

58. Ossenblok T. L. et al. 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. № 5. P. 882–897.

59. Ossenblok T. L. et al. 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. № 4. P. 280–290.

60. Sivertsen G. Patterns of Internationalization and Criteria for Research Assessment in the Social Sciences and Humanities // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 107. № 2. 357–368.

61. 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. № 2. 567–575.

62. Verleysen F. T., Engels T. C. Barycenter Representation of Book Publishing Internationalization in the Social Sciences and Humanities // Journal of Informetrics. Vol. 8. № 1. P. 234–240.

63. 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. № 2. P. 1431–1444.

64. 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. № 3. P. 1673–1686.

65. Verleysen F. T., Weeren A. Clustering by Publication Patterns of Senior Authors in the Social Sciences and Humanities // Journal of Informetrics. 2016. Vol. 10. № 1. P. 254–272.

66. Ло Дж. После метода: беспорядок и социальная наука. М.: Издательство Института Гайдара, 2015.

67. Сноу Ч. Две культуры и научная революция // Он же. Портреты и размышления. М.: Прогресс, 1985. С. 195–226.

68. Ardanuy J. Sixty Years of Citation Analysis Studies in the Humanities (1951–2010) // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 2013. Vol. 6. № 8. P. 1751–1755.

69. Bod R. A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

70. Chen C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2017. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 1–40.

71. Cozzens S. Taking the Measure of Science: A Review of Citation Theories // International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge. 1981. Vol. 7. № 1–2. P. 16–20.

72. Cozzens S. Using the Archive: Derek Price’s Theory of Differences among the Sciences // Scientometrics. 1985. Vol. 7. № 3–6. P. 431–441.

73. Cronin B. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. L.: Taylor Graham, 1984.

74. De Rijcke S. et al. Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use — A Literature Review // Research Evaluation. 2016. Vol. 25. № 2. P. 161–169.

75. Garfield E. et al. Citation Data as Science Indicators // Toward a Metric of Science / Y. Elkana et al. (eds). N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. P. 179–208.

76. Gläser J., Laudel G. Governing Science // European Journal of Sociology. 2016. Vol. 57. № 1. P. 117–168.

77. Godin B. Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology: 1920 to the Present. L.: Routledge, 2005.

78. Gross P. L., Gross E. M. College Libraries and Chemical Education // Science. 1927. Vol. 66. № 1713. P. 385–389.

79. Gross P. L., Woodford A. O. Serial Literature Used by American Geologists // Science. 1931. Vol. 73. № 1903. P. 660–664.

80. Hammarfelt B. Beyond Coverage: Toward a Bibliometrics for the Humanities // Research Assessment in the Humanities. Towards Criteria and Procedures / M. Ochsner et al. (eds). Cham: Springer, 2016. P. 115–131.

81. 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. № 11. P. 1819–1828.

82. Hug S. E. et al. 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. № 5. P. 369–383.

83. Luukkonen T. Why Has Latour’s Theory of Citations Been Ignored by the Bibliometric Community? // Scientometrics. 1997. Vol. 38. № 1. P. 27–37.

84. Moed H. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Pt. 2.3.

85. Moed H. et al. The Use of Bibliometric Data for the Measurement of University Research Performance // Research Policy. 1985. Vol. 14. № 3. P. 131–149.

86. Narin F. Evaluative Bibliometrics: The Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity. Washington: National Science Foundation, 1976.

87. Nederhof A. et al. Productiviteit en Kwaliteit in Alfa-en Gammawetenschappen; Een Haalbaarheidsonderzoek. Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij, 1988.

88. Nicolaisen J. Citation Analysis // Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2007. № 41. P. 609–642.

89. Ochsner M. et al. Research Assessment in the Humanities: Towards Criteria and Procedures. Cham: Springer, 2016.

90. Ochsner M. et al. Four Types of Research in the Humanities: Setting the Stage for Research Quality Criteria in the Humanities // Research Evaluation. 2012. Vol. 22. № 2. P. 79–92.

91. Petrey S. The Whole Mirth Catalogue // The French Review. 1980. Vol. 54. № 1. P. 117–121.

92. Price D. Little Science, Big Science… and Beyond. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1986.

93. Price D. Citation Measures of Hard Science, Soft Science, Technology and Non-Science // Communication Among Scientists and Engineers / C. Nelson, D. Pollock (eds). Lexington, KY: Heath Lexington, 1970. P. 3–22.

94. Rheinberger H.-J. On Historicizing Epistemology: An Essay. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.

95. Sile L. et al. European Databases and Repositories for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Output. Antwerp: ECOOM & ENRESSH, 2017.

96. Sivertsen G. Data Integration in Scandinavia // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 106. № 2. P. 849–855.

97. Van Eck N., Waltman L. Citnetexplorer: A New Software Tool for Analyzing and Visualizing Citation Networks // Journal of Informetrics. 2014. Vol. 8. № 4. P. 802–823.

98. Whitley R. The Social and Intellectual Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

99. Wouters P. The Citation Culture (Doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1999.

100. 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/.

101. Wyatt S. et al. The Intellectual and Practical Contributions of Scientometrics to STS // The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies / U. Felt et al. (eds). Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016. P. 87–112.