Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to acknowledge that there are bibliometric differences between Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) vs Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It is not so that either SSH or STEM has the right way of doing research or working as a scholarly community. Accordingly, research evaluation is not done properly in one framework based on either a method from SSH or STEM. However, performing research evaluation in two separate frameworks also has disadvantages. One way of scholarly practice may be favored unintentionally in evaluations and in research profiling, which is necessary for job and grant applications.Design/methodology/approachIn the case study, the authors propose a tool where it may be possible, on one hand, to evaluate across disciplines and on the other hand to keep the multifaceted perspective on the disciplines. Case data describe professors at an SSH and a STEM department at Aalborg University. Ten partial indicators are compiled to build a performance web – a multidimensional description – and a one-dimensional ranking of professors at the two departments. The partial indicators are selected in a way that they should cover a broad variety of scholarly practice and differences in data availability.FindingsA tool which can be used both for a one-dimensional ranking of researchers and for a multidimensional description is described in the paper.Research limitations/implicationsLimitations of the study are that panel-based evaluation is left out and that the number of partial indicators is set to 10.Originality/valueThe paper describes a new tool that may be an inspiration for practitioners in research analytics.
Highlights
You may find at least two distinct “research areas” in the world of research: the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and the area of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH)
Olmos-Peñuela et al (2014) describe issues in evaluating and analyzing research from both areas: “Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?” They question the widespread assumption that STEM research is more useful than SSH research, and they find that STEM and SSH research are useful in different ways
Several solutions have been proposed in the search for a bibliometric[1] tool, which may give a proper representation of research across disciplines
Summary
You may find at least two distinct “research areas” in the world of research: the area of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and the area of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). With a catching title, Olmos-Peñuela et al (2014) describe issues in evaluating and analyzing research from both areas: “Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’?” They question the widespread assumption that STEM research is more useful than SSH research, and they find that STEM and SSH research are useful in different ways. Is it possible to make comparisons across research areas? Harzing and Alakangas, 2016), but can the slower pace, lesser degree of collaboration and the wide-ranging audience characterizing SSH research be compensated for by a broader coverage. Not (De Bellis, 2009, p. 286)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call