Research production in the arts and humanities: A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance

Scientometrics

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 417-432

  Hemlin, S ^a   Gustafsson, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040448373     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02019256     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. This work was supported by a grant from the Council for Studies of Higher Education and finished while the first author was a Visiting Research Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex, 1995. I wish to thank Ben R. Martin, SPRU, University of Sussex and Anton Nederhof, CWTS, Leiden University for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper which was presented at the workshop Studies on the Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences, at SPRU, University of Sussex, 30 May, 1995.
2. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Sven Hemlin, Department of Psychology, Göteborg University, Haraldsgatan 1, S-413 14 Göteborg, Sweden. Phone +4631 773 1651, fax +46 31 773 16 28, e-mail Sven.Hemlin@psy.gu.se.
3. See e.g. VAN RAAN, A. (Ed.), (1988), Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
4. HICKS, D., SKEA, J., (1989), Is big really better? Physics World, 2(12) 31-34.
5. MARTIN, B., SKEA, J. E. F., LING, E. N., (1992), Performance Indicators for Academic Scientific Research. End-of-Award Report to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and to the Economic and Social Research Council. SPRU, University of Sussex.
6. RUSHTON, J. P., MURRAY, H. G., PAUNONEN, S. V., (1983), Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors, Scientometrics, 5, 93-116.
7. SIMONTON, D. K., (1988), Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251-267.
8. RODGERS, R. C., MARANTO, C. L., (1989), Causal models of publishing productivity in psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology. 74, 636-649.
9. GARVEY, W. D., (1979), Communication: The Essence of Science, New York: Pergamon Press.
10. KNORR, MITTERMEIER, AICHHOLZER, WALLER, (1979), Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in academic and industrial research units. In: F. M. ANDREWS (Ed.), Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, (pp. 55-94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. STANKIEWICZ, R., (1980), Leadership and the Performance of Research Groups. Doctoral dissertation, (RPI Research Policy Institute, University of Lund), Lund: Studentlitteratur.
12. KUHN, T. S., (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
13. GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P., TROW, M., (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage Publications.
14. See e.g. CALLON, M., COURTIAL, J.-P., LAVILLE, F., (1989), Co-word Analysis: A Tool for the Evaluation of Public Research Policy, The Case of Polymers, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, Ecole de Mines de Paris.
15. See Note 4.
16. r=0.58 and r=-0.38.
17. HEMLIN, S., (1993), Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist: A questionnaire study, Scientometrics, 27, 3-18.
18. PELZ, D. C., ANDREWS, F., (1966), Scientists in Organisations. Productive Climates for Research and Development, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
19. ANDREWS, F., (1979), Estimating the construct validity and the correlated error components of the rated-effectiveness measures. In: F. ANDREWS (Ed.), Scientific Productivity. The Effectiveness of Research Groups in Six Countries, (pp. 405-422). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. See Note 10.
21. PRPIĆ, K., (1991), Odrenice znasnstvene productivnosti (Determinants of scientific productivity). Table 27-28 (pp. 36, 110-111). Zagreb: IDIS. PRPIĆ, K. (1993).
22. PRPIC, K., (1993), Empirical notes on the quality of scientific contributions. In: K. PRPIC, F. DESPOT, N. DUGANDZIJA (Eds), Croatian Society on the Eve of Transition. Collection of papers, (pp. 195-211). Zagreb: Institute for Social Research, Zagreb University.
23. (N=921).
24. CHRISTIANSEN, J., FOSS HANSEN, H., (1993), Forskningsevaluering i teori og praksis (Research evaluation in theory and practice). Fredriksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
25. WHISTON, T., (1990), The Evaluation of ESRC Research Centres: A Study Undertaken for the Council of ESRC. Unpublished manuscript. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.
26. HEMLIN, S., (1994), Research Conditions in the Humanities. A Case Study of Ancient History and Classical Archeology and English. Paper presented to the EASST conference, 28-31 August, 1994, Budapest. Department of Psychology. Göteborg University.
27. The Swedish faculty of the humanities is divided into a history-philosophy and a language which were used for categorizing disciplines.
28. The criterion of belonging to the population being a listed doctor of the discipline in the catalogue.
29. The media language of papers in a discipline was determined in accordance with the dominating language of produced papers in the annual reports from the faculties. (Partly after Nederhof et al., 1989, see Note 38).
30. The four factors explained 55.2% of the variance of the six variables. The eigenvalue was 1.37.
31. The two factors explained 58.9% of the variance of the six variables. The eigenvalue was 1.09.
32. COLE, J., (1979), Fair Science. Women in the Scientific Community, New York: The Free Press.
33. See Note 7.
34. KASPERSON, C. J., (1978), An analysis of the relationship between information sources and creativity in scientists and engineers, Human Communication Research, 4, 111-119.
35. See Note 32.
36. See Note 10.
37. See Note 4.
38. NEDERHOF, A. J., ZWAAN, R. A., DEBRUIN, R. E., DEKKER, P. J., (1989), Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences: A comparative study, Scientometrics, 15, 423-435.
39. cf. HEMLIN, S., MONTGOMERY, H., (1993), Peer judgements of scientific quality: A cross-disciplinary document analysis of professorship candidates. Science Studies, 6, 19-27.
40. See Note 10.
41. See Note 32.
42. See Note 8.
43. See Note 8.
44. See Note 17.
45. See Note 4.
46. Rodgers and Maranto (See Note 8) have for example used multiple indicators of ability from different data sources and found that it was a strong factor influencing research performance in psychology by means of a LISREL path analysis.