IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03483-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bringing the doctoral thesis by published papers to the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A quantitative easing? A small study of doctoral thesis submission rules and practice in two disciplines in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • John Rigby

    (University of Manchester)

  • Barbara Jones

    (University of Manchester)

Abstract

This paper examines how an alternative to the traditional monograph form of the doctoral thesis is emerging that reflects a new approach to the valuation and designation of scientific outputs. This new approach, based on co-citation as underpinning principle for the measurement of knowledge structures, values knowledge and knowledge producers in increasingly quantitative terms. Such a change aligns with wider institutional market-based approaches that have been transforming higher education sectors world-wide. Under these influences, which prioritize quantification and tangibility of output, with quality equated with citation, the thesis, a key institution of the university, is now subject to pressures to transform and be constituted by a series of publishable papers, referred to by a variety of terms, the most common being ‘Thesis by Published Papers’, although ‘Journal Format Thesis’, ‘Alternative Format Thesis’, and ‘Integrated Thesis’ are also used. While the scientific disciplines have traditionally been closer to this paper-based model, albeit with significant national variations, Social Sciences and Humanities subjects are now being affected. We present evidence from a small study of the UK higher education sector of organisational regulations in 54 departments concerning doctoral degree submission formats in two disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences (History and Sociology). We investigate the prevalence of this new practice, investigate some of its key aspects, and identify a number of questions for future research on this emerging and important topic.

Suggested Citation

  • John Rigby & Barbara Jones, 2020. "Bringing the doctoral thesis by published papers to the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A quantitative easing? A small study of doctoral thesis submission rules and practice in two disciplines in ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1387-1409, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03483-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03483-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03483-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03483-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schubert, Torben, 2009. "Empirical observations on New Public Management to increase efficiency in public research--Boon or bane?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1225-1234, October.
    2. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Daifeng Li & Terrell G. Russell & S. Craig Finlay & Ying Ding, 2011. "The shifting sands of disciplinary development: Analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 185-204, January.
    3. Erik Ernø-Kjølhede & Finn Hansson, 2011. "Measuring research performance during a changing relationship between science and society," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 131-143, June.
    4. Imad A. Moosa, 2018. "Publish or Perish," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 17542.
    5. Ludo Waltman & Erjia Yan & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 301-314, October.
    6. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Maurizio Galetto & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2012. "The success-index: an alternative approach to the h-index for evaluating an individual’s research output," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 621-641, September.
    7. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    8. Cristiano Cagnin & Effie Amanatidou & Michael Keenan, 2012. "Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 140-152, March.
    9. ., 2018. "Publish or perish: Origin and perceived benefits," Chapters, in: Publish or Perish, chapter 1, pages 1-17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    11. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Daifeng Li & Terrell G. Russell & S. Craig Finlay & Ying Ding, 2011. "The shifting sands of disciplinary development: Analyzing North American Library and Information Science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(1), pages 185-204, January.
    12. Christopher Humphrey & Peter Miller, 2012. "Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 295-327, February.
    13. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    14. Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2013. "The UK and Italian research assessment exercises face to face," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1657-1666.
    15. Henk J. ter Bogt & Robert W. Scapens, 2012. "Performance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 451-497, February.
    16. M. Ryan Haley, 2013. "Rank variability of the Publish or Perish metrics for economics and finance journals," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 830-836, June.
    17. R. Kenna & B. Berche, 2011. "Critical mass and the dependency of research quality on group size," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 527-540, February.
    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. Lars H. Breimer & Dimitri P. Mikhailidis, 2020. "Half a century and more of PhD theses by published papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 813-816, October.

    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. Pin Li & Guoli Yang & Chuanqi Wang, 2019. "Visual topical analysis of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1753-1791, December.
    2. Chaoqun Ni & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Visualizing and comparing four facets of scholarly communication: producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1161-1173, March.
    3. Yan, Erjia, 2014. "Research dynamics: Measuring the continuity and popularity of research topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 98-110.
    4. Erjia Yan, 2014. "Topic-based Pagerank: toward a topic-level scientific evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 407-437, August.
    5. McLevey, John & McIlroy-Young, Reid, 2017. "Introducing metaknowledge: Software for computational research in information science, network analysis, and science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 176-197.
    6. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    7. Yi Bu & Binglu Wang & Win-bin Huang & Shangkun Che & Yong Huang, 2018. "Using the appearance of citations in full text on author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 275-289, July.
    8. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    9. Juha-Pekka Lauronen, 2022. "Tension in Interpretations of the Social Impact of the Social Sciences: Walking a Tightrope Between Divergent Conceptualizations of Research Utilization," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, April.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    11. Bagues, Manuel & Sylos-Labini, Mauro & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2019. "A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 462-477.
    12. Corrêa Jr., Edilson A. & Silva, Filipi N. & da F. Costa, Luciano & Amancio, Diego R., 2017. "Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 498-510.
    13. Wen-Yau Cathy Lin, 2012. "Research status and characteristics of library and information science in Taiwan: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 7-21, July.
    14. Andrej Kastrin & Dimitar Hristovski, 2021. "Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1415-1451, February.
    15. Bertocchi, Graziella & Gambardella, Alfonso & Jappelli, Tullio & Nappi, Carmela A. & Peracchi, Franco, 2015. "Bibliometric evaluation vs. informed peer review: Evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 451-466.
    16. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    17. Civera, Alice & Lehmann, Erik E. & Paleari, Stefano & Stockinger, Sarah A.E., 2020. "Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    18. B Ian Hutchins & Xin Yuan & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2016. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Francisco Díez-Martín & Alicia Blanco-González & Camilo Prado-Román, 2021. "The intellectual structure of organizational legitimacy research: a co-citation analysis in business journals," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1007-1043, May.
    20. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.

    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:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03483-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.