Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 1696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=1696,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 1696, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 4441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=4441,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 4441, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4441)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article employs citation analysis on a micro level-the level of the cited document; in this case, Walter Benjamin's Illuminations (1968/2007). The study shows how this frequently cited publication-more than 4,000 citations in Web of Science-has been received. The growth of citations and interdisciplinary citing is studied, and a novel approach-page citation analysis-is applied to study how different parts of Illuminations have been cited. The article demonstrates how bibliometric methods can be used together with qualitative accounts to map the impact and dissemination of a particular publication. Furthermore, it shows how bibliometric methods can be utilized to study intellectual structures in the humanities, and highlights the influence of the humanities on the social sciences and sciences.

Content

"One can go even further and remember that interruption is one of the fundamental devices of all structuring. It goes far beyond the sphere of art. To give only one example, it is the basis of quotation. To quote a text involves the interruption of its context." [Walter Benjamin (1968/2007, p. 151)]

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4941,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4941, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Using the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) 2008, we apply mapping techniques previously developed for mapping journal structures in the Science and Social Sciences Citation Indices. Citation relations among the 110,718 records were aggregated at the level of 1,157 journals specific to the A&HCI, and the journal structures are questioned on whether a cognitive structure can be reconstructed and visualized. Both cosine-normalization (bottom up) and factor analysis (top down) suggest a division into approximately 12 subsets. The relations among these subsets are explored using various visualization techniques. However, we were not able to retrieve this structure using the Institute for Scientific Information Subject Categories, including the 25 categories that are specific to the A&HCI. We discuss options for validation such as against the categories of the Humanities Indicators of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the panel structure of the European Reference Index for the Humanities, and compare our results with the curriculum organization of the Humanities Section of the College of Letters and Sciences of the University of California at Los Angeles as an example of institutional organization.

Type

a

0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4290,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4290, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While bibliometric indicators, such as the journal impact factor, have long played an important role in many STEM disciplines it has been repeatedly shown that established bibliometric methods have limited use in the humanities. Using a questionnaire on metrics use and publication practices in Australia and Sweden, we tested the assumption that indicators play a minor role among humanities scholars. Our findings show that our respondents use indicators to a considerable degree, with a range of indicators and rankings being employed. The scholars use metrics as part of institutional policy, in CVs and applications, as well as for general promotion of their work. Notable in our results is that a much larger share of researchers (62%) in Australia used metrics compared to Sweden (14%). Scholar's attitudes regarding bibliometrics are mixed; many are critical of these measures, while at the same time feeling pressured to use them. One main tension described by our respondents is between intradisciplinary criteria of quality and formalized indicators, and negotiating these "orders of worth" is a challenging balancing act, especially for younger researchers.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4671,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4671, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4671)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The use of indicators and metrics for research evaluation purposes is well-documented; however, less is known about their use by individual scholars. With a focus on the social sciences, this article contributes to the existing literature on indicators and metrics use in fields with diverse publication practices. Scholars in Australia and Sweden were asked about their use and reasons for using metrics. A total of 581 completed surveys were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics, with textual analysis performed on comments provided to open questions. While just under half of the participant group had used metrics, the Australians reported use in twice the proportion of their Swedish peers. Institutional policies and processes were frequently associated with use, and the scholars' comments suggest a high level of awareness of some metrics as well as strategic behavior in demonstrating research performance. There is also evidence of tensions between scholars' research evaluation environment and their disciplinary values and publication practices.

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 5880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=5880,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5880, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Discipline" is commonly used to denote particular areas of knowledge, research and education. Yet, the concept is often not very well defined or even explicitly discussed when used in knowledge organisation and related fields. The aim of this article is to encourage and facilitate further reflections on academic disciplines, while at the same time offering insights on how this elusive concept might be understood. An overarching argument is that "discipline" should foremost be understood in relation to institutional and organisational features, and this is what distinguishes it from related terms such as, field, domain or topic. The etymology and history of the concept are reviewed along with a discussion of attempts to define and conceptualise disciplines. Insights are offered on how disciplines might be studied. Regardless of our views of disciplines, either as inherently out-dated constructs or as important features of a well-functioning academia, it is concluded that further precision or care in explicating the concept is needed.

Type

a