IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aib/ibtjbs/v1y2005i1p1-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Hicks

    (School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This paper reviews bibliometric studies of the social sciences and humanities.The premise of the chapter is that quantitative evaluation of research output in the social sciences and humanities faces severe methodological difficulties.Bibliometric evaluations are based on international journal literature indexed in the SSCI, but social scientists also publish books, and write for national journals and for the nonscholarly press.These literatures form distinct, yet partially overlapping worlds in which each literature serves a different purpose.For example, national journals and the nonscholarly press represent research in interaction with contexts of application.Each literature is more transdisciplinary than its scientific counterpart, which itself poses methodological challenges.The nature and role of each of the literatures will be explored here, and the chapter will argue that by ignoring the three other literatures of social science bibliometric evaluation produces a distorted picture of social science fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Hicks, 2005. "The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-20.
    • Handle: RePEc:aib:ibtjbs:v:1:y:2005:i:1:p:1-20
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.ibtjbs.2005.11.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ibtjbs.ilmauniversity.edu.pk/journal/jbs/1.1/1.%20The%20Four%20Literatures%20of%20Social%20Sciences.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.ibtjbs.2005.11.1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Ingwersen, 2000. "The International Visibility and Citation Impact of Scandinavian Research Articles in Selected Social Science Fields: The Decay of a Myth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 39-61, August.
    2. Nederhof, A. J. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1993. "A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 353-368, August.
    3. Peter Ingwersen, 2002. "Visibility and impact of research in Psychiatry for North European countries in EU, US and world contexts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(1), pages 131-144, April.
    4. Anthony J. Nederhof & Marc Luwel & Henk F. Moed, 2001. "Assessing the quality of scholarly journals in Linguistics:An alternative to citation-based journal impact factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 241-265, April.
    5. A. J. Nederhof & R. A. Zwaan, 1991. "Quality judgments of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 42(5), pages 332-340, June.
    6. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & U. Schoepflin & H. J. Czerwon, 1999. "An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in journals covered by the SSCI database using reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 431-441, November.
    7. W. Glänzel & A. Schubert & H. -J. Czerwon, 1999. "An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 427-439, March.
    8. A. J. Nederhof & E. Wijk, 1999. "Profiling institutes: Identifying high research performance and social relevance in the social and behavioral sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(3), pages 487-506, March.
    9. Grant Lewison, 2001. "Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 89-95, August.
    10. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, April.
    11. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qingzhou Luo & Jianhong Cecilia Xia & Gaby Haddow & Michele Willson & Jun Yang, 2018. "Does distance hinder the collaboration between Australian universities in the humanities, arts and social sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 695-715, May.
    2. Steffen Lemke & Athanasios Mazarakis & Isabella Peters, 2021. "Conjoint analysis of researchers' hidden preferences for bibliometrics, altmetrics, and usage metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(6), pages 777-792, June.
    3. Claudia N. González Brambila & José Luis Olivares-Vázquez, 2021. "Patterns and evolution of publication and co-authorship in Social Sciences in Mexico," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2595-2626, March.
    4. Nestor Gandelman & Osiris J. Parcero & Matilde Pereira & Flavia Roldán, 2021. "Ventajas comparativas reveladas en disciplinas científicas y tecnológicas en Uruguay," Documentos de Investigación 125, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    5. Alice Fleerackers & Lise Nehring & Lauren A. Maggio & Asura Enkhbayar & Laura Moorhead & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "Identifying science in the news: An assessment of the precision and recall of Altmetric.com news mention data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6109-6123, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diana Hicks, 2005. "The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-1.
    2. Júlio Cesar Rodrigues Pereira & André Luiz Fischer & Maria Mercedes Loureiro Escuder, 2000. "Driving Factors of High Performance in Brazilian Management Sciences for the 1981–1995 Period," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(2), pages 307-319, October.
    3. Vučković Dijana & Pekovic Sanja & Popović Stevo & Janinovic Jovana, 2023. "Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 131-152, September.
    4. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Zuniga, Pluvia, 2009. "Diversity of science linkages and innovation performance: some empirical evidence from Flemish firms," Economics Discussion Papers 2009-30, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    6. Ülle Must, 2012. "Alone or together: examples from history research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 527-537, May.
    7. Dorothea Jansen & Regina Görtz & Richard Heidler, 2010. "Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 219-241, April.
    8. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    9. Diana Hicks, 1999. "The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 44(2), pages 193-215, February.
    10. Julie Callaert & Maikel Pellens & Bart Looy, 2014. "Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1617-1629, March.
    11. Wen-Chi Hung & Cherng G. Ding & Hung-Jui Wang & Meng-Che Lee & Chieh-Peng Lin, 2015. "Evaluating and comparing the university performance in knowledge utilization for patented inventions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1269-1286, February.
    12. Antonio J. Gómez-Núñez & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2011. "Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 741-758, December.
    13. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2003. "Searching Low and High What Types of Firms use Universities as a Source of Innovation?," DRUID Working Papers 03-16, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    14. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    15. Staša Milojević, 2020. "Nature, Science, and PNAS: disciplinary profiles and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1301-1315, June.
    16. Jinyoung Kim & Sangjoon Lee & Gerald Marschke, 2014. "Impact of university scientists on innovations in nanotechnology," Chapters, in: Sanghoon Ahn & Bronwyn H. Hall & Keun Lee (ed.), Intellectual Property for Economic Development, chapter 6, pages 141-158, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Keld Laursen & Ammon Salter, 2005. "The fruits of intellectual production: economic and scientific specialisation among OECD countries," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(2), pages 289-308, March.
    18. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    19. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2017. "Back to Basics: Why do Firms Invest in Research?," NBER Working Papers 23187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Xiaoyu Cai & Tao Han, 2020. "Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1077-1094, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    N/A;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aib:ibtjbs:v:1:y:2005:i:1:p:1-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Syed Kashif Rafi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fmilmpk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.