bibliometric research assessment as professional … · bibliometric research assessment as...
TRANSCRIPT
BibliometricResearchAssessmentasProfessionalJurisdiction?InsightsfromtheHistoryoftheLeidenCentreforScienceand
TechnologyStudies(CWTS),1980–2016
SabrinaPetersohn&ThomasHeinze,UniversityofWuppertalScience,TechnologyandInnovationIndicatorsConference2017,Paris
Sept82017
BibPro: ResearchEvaluationinTransition:TheInstitutionalizationofBibliometricsasaResearchFieldandProfessionalizationasanExpertField
Professionaljurisdiction (Abbott1988)
Professionals:Diagnosis,inference,treatment
Commodities:Knowledgestored inartefacts
Academicsector:Abstractknowledge system
Clients:Complex individualcases
Professionaljurisdiction
Expertorganizationsinevaluativebibliometrics
Contract research institutesand consultancies
Databaseproviders (i.e.Clarivate,Elsevier)
EvaluativeBibliometricsas academic field
Researchorganizations,funding organizations
Professionaljurisdiction
Dataset
Interviewmaterial•12expertinterviewswithcurrentandformerCWTSmembersandsciencepolicyexpertsfromKNAW,VSNU,RathenauInstituteandQANUArchivalmaterial•492CWTScontractresearchprojectreports•CWTSAnnualReports1986-2010•FacultyReportsLeidenUniversity1995,2000•295evaluationreportsissuedduringtheVSNUprotocolevaluations(1994,1998)andSEP(2003,2009)•Evaluationprotocols(VSNU1993,1994,1998,SEP2003,2009,2015)•Legislativeandpolicydocuments
Emergenceofquantitativeresearchassessmentasajurisdiction
• Technologicalchange:ScienceCitationIndex
• Sciencepolicydemands:Fundingdecisions,prioritiesandaccountability
– Netherlands:expertiseinpolicy-relevantsciencestudieswasbuiltupinaministerialdepartment,anadvisorycouncilandinsciencestudiesgroupatLeidenUniversity
– MinistryofEducationandScienceandResearchCouncilNWOfundlong-termresearchprogramsinScienceandTechnologyindicators
ProfessionalclaimofCWTSasanexpertorganization
ProfessionalclaimofCWTS– Bibliometricsasadiagnostictool:
„Theessenceisthatwecameupwithatoolthatenabledexpertsinthefieldtoidentifyemerginggroups.Thatwaswhatitwasallabout- emergingordeclining.“ (InterviewHenkMoed)
Bibliometricsas„quantitativecoreofpeerreview“ (vanRaan1996):“Thereforethesupportofpeerreviewbybibliometricsisa(sic!)indispensablepartoftheevaluationprocedure.“ (vanRaan1999:418)
CognitivebasisofCWTSclaimtoexpertise
Cognitiveclaimbasedon
•Meticulouscollectionandcarefulprocessingofpublicationandcitationdata•methodoffieldnormalization•thecreationofamodifiedin-houseversionoftheISI-databasesspecificallyadaptedtopurposesofresearchevaluation(Moedetal.1995)
CommunicationofCWTScognitiveclaimintheacademicfield
1985 1990 1995 2000
CWTSsocialclaimtoexpertise
1985 1990 1995 2000
AcceptanceofCWTSsocialclaims–clientstructure
N=492CWTScontractresearchreports
Formativephase1986-1993
Expansionphase1994-2007
Consolidationanddiversificationphase2008-2015
ThreatstoCWTSpositionintheexpertfieldofevaluativebibliometrics
N=295EvaluationreportsfromVSNUProtocolandSEPevaluations
CWTScognitiveclaimstoconsolidateitspositionintheexpertfield
2005 2010 2015 2020
CWTSsocialclaimstoconsolidateitspositionintheexpertfield
2005 2010 2015 2020
Petersohn,S.(2016):Professionalcompetenciesandjurisdictionalclaimsinevaluativebibliometrics:Theeducationalmandateofacademiclibrarians.EducationforInformation,32(2),165-193.
Jappe,A.;Heinze,T.;Pithan,D.(underreview):ReputationalControlandtheProfessionalizationofEvaluativeCitationAnalysis.
Petersohn,S.;Heinze,T.(underreview):ProfessionalizingBibliometricResearchAssessment?InsightsfromtheLeidenCentreforScienceandTechnologyStudies(CWTS).(1980-2016).
Projectpublications