Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist. A questionnaire study

Hemlin, Sven

doi:10.1007/bf02017752

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study also support Hemlin's (1993) finding that in the humanities influence from outside is rated negative. This constitutes as it were the negatively connoted conception of 'modern' research (see Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The results of this study do confirm that individual research is an important cornerstone of humanities research, as frequently portrayed in the literature (Hemlin 1993;Hemlin and Gustafsson 1996;Cronin, Shaw and La Barre 2003;Guetzkow, Lamont and Mallard 2004;Hellqvist 2010). But individual research corresponds to the conception of positively connoted 'traditional' research (see Table 2, quality criterion 11 'autonomy').…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The first two points-namely, focused on theory, source, and text and introducing new perspectives and reflections; criticism, which several authors call features of humanities research (Hemlin 1993(Hemlin , 1996Guetzkow, Lamont and Mallard 2004;Furlong and Oancea 2007;Hellqvist 2010), are the common denominators of the conceptions of 'traditional' and 'modern' research having a positive connotation (see Table 2, quality criteria 3 'scientific character' and 12 'scholarship', respectively, quality criteria 4 'reflection, criticism' and 8 'diversity, variety').…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities

Ochsner

Hug

Daniel

2012

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents humanities scholars' conceptions of research and subjective notions of quality in the three disciplines German literature studies, English literature studies, and art history, captured using 21 Repertory Grid interviews. We identified three dimensions that structure the scholars' conceptions of research: quality, time, and success. Further, the results revealed four types of research in the humanities: positively connoted 'traditional' research (characterized as individual, discipline-oriented, and ground-breaking research), positively connoted 'modern' research (cooperative, interdisciplinary, and socially relevant), negatively connoted 'traditional' research (isolated, reproductive, and conservative), and negatively connoted 'modern' research (career oriented, epigonal, calculated). In addition, 15 quality criteria for research in the three disciplines German literature studies, English literature studies, and art history were derived from the Repertory Grid interviews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities

Ochsner

Hug

Daniel

2012

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, the authors find a high degree of pragmatic equivalence, as all texts are embedded in the same peer review procedure leading to unilateral anonymity and multiple addressees, which both are characteristic features of this type of text. Kretzenbacher and Thurmair state that, from a linguistic point of view, evaluative reviews are essentially situated within a communicative surrounding of scientific language in which qualitative evaluations are tabooed as they are not 4 There are some questionnaire studies investigating quality criteria in science in general, see Hemlin (1993) and Dirk (1999). 5 The papers by Kretzenbacher and Thurmair are in German and the term they use is "Äquivalenz".…”

Section: Science Funding and The Content Of Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

Reinhart¹

2010

Res. Eval.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The primary purpose of this study is to open up the black box of peer review and to increase its transparency, understanding, and credibility. To this end, two arguments will be presented: First, epistemic and social aspects of peer review procedures are inseparable and mutually constitutive. Second, a content analysis of written reviews indicates that certain elements of peer culture from the 17 th century are still active in the scientific community. These arguments are illustrated by a case study on the peer review practices of a national funding institution, the Swiss National Science Foundation. Based on the case study and the two arguments it will be concluded more generally that peer review procedures show a distinctive specificity to the reviewed objects (e.g. papers or proposals), the organisational format (e.g. panels or external reviewers), or the surrounding context (e.g. disciplinary or interdisciplinary). Scientists, administrators, and the public may conclude that appraising peer review procedures should not be done by way of general principals but should be based on concrete factual knowledge on the specific process under discussion.3

show abstract

“…The literature so far describes the characteristics of SSH research in the following way: a) SSH research is interpretative, that is, humanities research is mainly text-and theory-driven and social sciences are more concept-driven, while the natural sciences set up their studies to answer specific questions and are progress-driven (MacDonald, 1994;Guetzkow et al, 2004;Lamont, 2009); it is reflective and introduces new perspectives in academia, by fostering discursive controversy and competing visions (Fisher et al, 2000;Hellqvist, 2010). With regard to the society, they bring a decisive contribution to the training of critical thinking as a prerequisite for democracy (Nussbaum, 2010) or to the critical examination of modern trends, such as technologisation (Luckmann, 2004); c) it is mainly individual (Finkenstaedt, 1990;Weingart et al, 1991), few publications are co-authored (Hemlin, 1996;Hellqvist, 2010) and research is often connected to the person conducting it (Hemlin and Gustafsson, 1996;Guetzkow et al, 2004); d) productivity is not that important for research performance in the SSH (Hemlin, 1993;Fisher et al, 2000;Hug et al, 2013); e) societal orientation is important, i.e. research is meant to influence society, direct interaction with society is part of SSH research (Weingart et al, 1991;Hellqvist, 2010;Hug et al, 2013); but f) the influence of society or other stakeholders outside of academia, such as external funding, on SSH research is evaluated negatively (Hemlin, 1993;Hug et al, 2013;Ochsner et al, 2013).…”

Section: Ssh Research Practices and Criteria For Research Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research assessment in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) is delicate. Assessment procedures meet strong criticisms from SSH scholars and bibliometric research shows that the methods that are usually applied are ill-adapted to SSH research. While until recently research on assessment in the SSH disciplines focused on the deficiencies of the current assessment methods, we present some European initiatives that take a bottom-up approach. They focus on research practices in SSH and reflect on how to assess SSH research with its own approaches instead of applying and adjusting the methods developed for and in the natural and life sciences. This is an important development because we can learn from previous evaluation exercises that whenever scholars felt that assessment procedures were imposed in a top-down manner without proper adjustments to SSH research, it resulted in boycotts or resistance. Applying adequate evaluation methods not only helps foster a better valorization of SSH research within the research community, among policymakers and colleagues from the natural sciences, but it will also help society to better understand SSH's contributions to solving major societal challenges. Therefore, taking the time to encourage bottom-up evaluation initiatives should result in being able to better confront the main challenges facing modern society. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

show abstract

Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist. A questionnaire study

Cited by 41 publications

References 4 publications

Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities

Four types of research in the humanities: Setting the stage for research quality criteria in the humanities

Peer review practices: a content analysis of external reviews in science funding

The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About