IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v36y2009i3p215-227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in publication and dissemination practices between disciplinary and transdisciplinary science and the consequences for research evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Kaufmann
  • Andrea Kasztler

Abstract

Modern science has become a highly diversified social system. Its diversity is not only attributable to the multitude of specialized subjects but also to different research styles. Disciplinary and transdisciplinary research coexist side by side. In transdisciplinary science non-scientists participate actively in research projects. Although it has become a very important part of science today, much of the practice in research evaluation is still based on the standards and customs of traditional disciplinary science. Our comparative analysis of three research fields: economics and botany, representing disciplinary science, and sustainability research, representing a more transdisciplinarily oriented field, showed that there are significant differences in publication and dissemination practices. From these facts we derive some conclusions about how research evaluation should be modified in order to be able to assess the results of transdisciplinary research adequately. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Kaufmann & Andrea Kasztler, 2009. "Differences in publication and dissemination practices between disciplinary and transdisciplinary science and the consequences for research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 215-227, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:215-227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234209X427121
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Kolesnikov & Eriko Fukumoto & Barry Bozeman, 2018. "Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1995-2017, September.
    2. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.

    More about this item

    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:oup:scippl:v:36:y:2009:i:3:p:215-227. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.