Investigating SSH Research and Publication Practices in Disciplinary and Institutional Contexts. A Survey-Based Comparative Approach in Two Universities.

Florian Bayer,Juan Gorraiz,Christian Gumpenberger,Steve Reding,Isabel Iribarren-Maestro,Arantxa Itúrbide

doi:10.3389/frma.2019.00001

Abstract

In this paper, we comparatively analyze, present and discuss the results from a survey on increasing the visibility of research achievements in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) that was carried out at the University of Vienna (Austria) and the University of Navarra (Spain) in 2016 and 2017. Covering four major topics—searching and finding literature, publishing, the visibility of research, and the assessment of research outputs—we ask the following questions: are there disciplinary differences to be identified, and how do they present themselves in the two institutional contexts? Discussing the results, we showcase how disciplinary and institutional traditions and contexts are important factors that influence research and publication practices in the SSH. Our results indicate that the practices of searching and finding literature as well as publication practices and behavior are shaped by disciplinary traditions and epistemic cultures. On the contrary, assessment and valuation of research outputs are influenced by institutional and national contexts in which SSH research is organized and carried out.

Highlights

Scientometrics is a steadily expanding field, and increasing efforts are taken to trace and reflect major shifts in the governance of contemporary academia or incentives by research management
We started our online survey with the topic searching and finding literature to identify possible indications of disciplinary differences within sciences and humanities (SSH) research in the ways researchers are approaching the work of their peers and beyond
It is interesting that a majority of researchers at both institutions include strategies that are less related to disciplinary tradition or institutional policy in their routines for searching and finding literature—i.e., Internet search engines such as Google, Bing or Yahoo and library catalogs and search engines

Summary

Introduction

Scientometrics is a steadily expanding field, and increasing efforts are taken to trace and reflect major shifts in the governance of contemporary academia or incentives by research management. These changes can either impact research achievements in a positive or negative way. When scrutinizing the effects of policy or institutional change, scientometric, and bibliometric analyses—in the end—aim to observe changes in the practices and preferences of individual researchers that are organized within and across disciplinary research collectives. Any analysis of changes going on in academia is vulnerable to becoming moot if it fails to follow the top-down initiated effects down to the level of individual preferences and practices. An analysis must account for the researcher’s changing expectations of what state-of-the-art research is and how top-tier research publications can be identified

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion