Abstract
This paper argues that quantitative science studies should frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts. We illustrate this argument with reference to the “sociology of professions,” a middle-range theoretical framework developed by Chicago sociologist Andrew Abbott. Using this framework, we counter the claim that the use of bibliometric indicators in research assessment is pervasive in all advanced economies. Rather, our comparison between the Netherlands and Italy reveals major differences in the national design of bibliometric research assessment: The Netherlands follows a model of bibliometric professionalism, whereas Italy follows a centralized bureaucratic model that co-opts academic elites. We conclude that applying the sociology of professions framework to a broader set of countries would be worthwhile, allowing the emerging bibliometric profession to be charted in a comprehensive, and preferably quantitative, fashion. We also briefly discuss other sociological middle-range concepts that could potentially guide empirical analyses in quantitative science studies.
Highlights
The argument of this paper is that quantitative science studies should more frequently frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts (Merton, 1968) in order to advance our understanding of institutional configurations of national research systems and their changes
We illustrate this argument with reference to the theoretical framework “sociology of professions” (Abbott, 1988, 1991), which we apply to a comparison of research evaluation frameworks in the Netherlands and Italy, two countries that contrast in how knowledge for research assessment is both produced and used
As a new and emerging profession, evaluative bibliometrics has successfully established a subordinate jurisdiction in the Netherlands, but that similar professionalization cannot be observed in Italy
Summary
The argument of this paper is that quantitative science studies should more frequently frame their data and analyses with middle-range sociological theories and concepts (Merton, 1968) in order to advance our understanding of institutional configurations of national research systems and their changes. We illustrate this argument with reference to the theoretical framework “sociology of professions” (Abbott, 1988, 1991), which we apply to a comparison of research evaluation frameworks in the Netherlands and Italy, two countries that contrast in how knowledge for research assessment is both produced and used. We briefly discuss one such concept, Hollingsworth’s (2004, 2006, p. 425–426) “weakly versus strongly regulated institutional environments.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
