Heterogeneous research audiences are an often asserted characteristic of studies in the humanities. 1 Percentage of books and journal articles cited in selected fields in the humanities and social sciences (data from 1995 to 2005).
4 Intellectual Organization of Research Fields and Its Bibliometric Consequences
Fragmented and Rural Research Fields
There is no shortage of approaches to studying the humanities using bibliometric methods, and the brief directions given here are not exhaustive. Nevertheless, the review illustrates that bibliometric research depends on the availability of data sources, especially citation indexes, and the content, accessibility, and coverage of these data sources dictate how research is conducted. In this effort, we need to move beyond issues of database content and coverage and focus on the organization and characteristics of research across disciplines.
Therefore, in the following chapter I reflect on publication models and referencing practices in relation to the social and intellectual organization of research fields. Another useful characterization for understanding the organization of research fields is that between rural and urban fields (Becher and Trowler 2001). The difference between rural and urban has to do with the 'density' of a discipline or a research area; if many researchers are working on the same problem, then the research area is described as urban, while a less populated discipline is considered rural.
Strong competition for positions and resources can be observed in urban research fields (for example, biomedicine), while in rural areas there are fewer struggles for resources and recognition (as well as fewer awards).
Referencing Practices and Citation Patterns
There is considerable disagreement about what topics to study as well as how these topics should be approached, and the lack of standards makes it difficult to resolve disputes. Two main characteristics that influence referencing practice and citation patterns in the humanities can therefore be distinguished: low dependence on colleagues and the rural organization of the field. A diverse audience makes it possible for individual researchers to find readers outside their own field, with the result that scholars are less dependent on peers for recognition.
The high task uncertainty of many fields in the humanities and the low dependence on colleagues give the individual researcher great freedom in pursuing a unique research profile, which results in researchers being scattered across many different topics with little communication between them. Thus, researchers in the humanities enjoy many options when choosing topics, publication channels and whom to cite, but this in turn limits the potential for receiving 'rewards' in the form of citations. Therefore, low coverage of publications in citation databases is not the most important reason why citation scores are less applicable as an indicator of impact in the humanities.
Instead, I suggest that the social and intellectual organization of the humanities is the main reason why citation-based approaches are less useful in these fields.
5 Conclusions
Challenges
Extensive interdisciplinary citation may be another reason for adopting 'humanities' as a subject of study. However, I suggest that a further focus on specific fields and theses will provide a better understanding of publication and citation patterns in the humanities. Altmetric methods consistent with the organization of the humanities are an additional area of research.
Such measures would be an important contribution not only to the evaluation of the humanities, but also to the measurement of the general impact of research in society. Finally, the encounter of "metric culture" with scholarship in the humanities is a particularly important area of study. Therefore, the key issue is how the organization and character of the humanities will respond to additional attempts at measurement and evaluation.
The answer to this question is important not only for the bibliometric community, but also for the future of studies in the humanities.
Citation in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Books' and 'Book Chapters' in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). In Proceedings of the ASIS&T Annual Meeting, Vol. Reference analysis American Historical Review.Collection Building Towards indicators of research performance in the social sciences and humanities.
Four types of research in the humanities: Developing research quality criteria in the humanities. Research evaluation. A Macro-Analysis of Productivity Differences Across Fields: Challenges in Measuring Scholarly Publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Exploring Alternative Cyber-Bibliometrics for Evaluating Scholarly Achievements in Social Sciences and Humanities in Taiwan.
Book reviews in humanities research evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
What Citation Indices Measure
1 Introduction
The literature's aversion to bibliometrics seems partly legitimate, because statistics can only be meaningful if they rely on sufficiently large numbers. The contradiction can be found in the self-perception of certain disciplines—rather than in a conflict between citation practices and quantitative methods. These can be compared to practices in the sciences; and these should be linked to the common critique of quantitative methods.
In the third section, I will present some statistical data; I do not create new data, but simply use existing information. My focus will be on the small numbers involved, that is, I will show how few citations actually occur in the literature. I will consider possible explanations, some that approve of citation practices in the humanities and others that disfavor their academic culture.
Ultimately, if my original claim about intrinsic operational contradictions within the humanities turns out to be true, more research needs to be done to understand the current tension.
2 Quotation Culture in the Humanities
- Characteristics of Quotations in the Humanities
- Disapproval of Bibliometrics and of ‘Quantities’ Per se
- The European Reference Index for the Humanities
- Rigor and Quotations
1992), an impressively long list of references is one of the most important prerequisites for a doctoral dissertation to be accepted in the literature. Since the broad use of references emerged in the 19th century, when humanistic disciplines tried to become 'scientific' (Hellqvist2010, p. 311), the difference between the humanities and the sciences should not be considered very strong . The most widespread criticism by scholars in the humanities attacks bibliometric analysis for its inability to measure quality.
The disciplines in the humanities feel increasing pressure from funding agencies and governments to expose their strategies of evaluation (cf. Wiemer2011). There can be two main reasons for the cohesion that becomes visible as a result of the quotation network. Only publications that meet the methodological demands of the respective discipline will have a chance to be cited.
Regardless of the quality, originality and importance of the article, coherence places the author within a specific group.
3 Low Quotation Frequencies in Literature 3.1 Materials and Methods
Results
Table 1 The five best-ranked publications in the subject category Literature and literary theory in 2012 (data on citations according to Scopus) Title SJRH-index Total number of documents.a Total number of documents.bTotal number of references. Arguably, this effect must come from the small number of citations in literature and literary theory to allow an interdisciplinary journal to move to the top spot. Another magazine might be worth a closer look. New Literary History belongs to the highest category of ERIH ('INT1'); personally, I would guess that it could be among the best magazines.
However, this prestigious journal does not appear to be frequently cited when looking at the numbers provided by Scopus (see Table 2). These figures can be compared with those of the most influential journal in medicine (as re-ranked by the SJR2 indicator), the New England Journal of Medicine. As for New Literary History, I am discussing one of the journals that is at least receiving some attention (in terms of citation analysis).
On the one hand, the absolute numbers are so low that small changes affect the position of journals.
Possible Objections
The only reliable possibility would be a systematic distinction between primary and secondary sources in the bibliographies, a practice common in many scholarly publications but far from universal. Scholars cite numerous sources; at least nothing suggests that reference lists in the humanities are shorter than in other disciplines. In the vast majority of cases, their distribution is as Poisson-like as the 'instantaneous' quotes, and they are so rare.
Nederhof (1996) claims that in some humanistic disciplines the impact of articles reaches a peak in the third year. In one of the top journals in Literature, Poetics Today('INT1'), the Web of Science records two citations of an article of mine. There is no idea whatsoever that inappropriate citations occur more often in the humanities than in other disciplines.
Nevertheless, we must consider the possibility that even the small numbers that appear in the figures.
4 Discussion
According to the scientists, their task is to expose the impact of cultural heritage on society. Perhaps freeing the humanities from the evaluations and structures created for modern research disciplines would free the humanities from their bonds, restore their own self-confidence, and reduce the costs that their current embeddedness in the universities imposes on the sponsors. In the 1980s and early 1990s there were intense debates and the questions at stake could be clearly identified (see Hüser, 1992).
With regard to cohesion (see Sect.2.4), such a situation would also imply that the experts in the affected fields no longer form a community that would identify itself as cohesive; one no longer feels responsible for others and for the discipline's future. As for the first one, one would have to ask why scholars never realized that they were cast in the wrong movie. As for the second one, there are few hints of a significant change in the last 20 years.
It can be confirmed that a criterion such as rigor is consistently applied to new works; but it may just as well turn out that the measure is a passe-partout that hides a lack of intellectual cohesion in the field.
