Page 1
BibliometricResearchAssessmentasProfessionalJurisdiction?InsightsfromtheHistoryoftheLeidenCentreforScienceand
TechnologyStudies(CWTS),1980–2016
SabrinaPetersohn&ThomasHeinze,UniversityofWuppertalScience,TechnologyandInnovationIndicatorsConference2017,Paris
Sept82017
BibPro: ResearchEvaluationinTransition:TheInstitutionalizationofBibliometricsasaResearchFieldandProfessionalizationasanExpertField
Page 2
Professionaljurisdiction (Abbott1988)
Professionals:Diagnosis,inference,treatment
Commodities:Knowledgestored inartefacts
Academicsector:Abstractknowledge system
Clients:Complex individualcases
Professionaljurisdiction
Page 3
Expertorganizationsinevaluativebibliometrics
Contract research institutesand consultancies
Databaseproviders (i.e.Clarivate,Elsevier)
EvaluativeBibliometricsas academic field
Researchorganizations,funding organizations
Professionaljurisdiction
Page 4
Dataset
Interviewmaterial•12expertinterviewswithcurrentandformerCWTSmembersandsciencepolicyexpertsfromKNAW,VSNU,RathenauInstituteandQANUArchivalmaterial•492CWTScontractresearchprojectreports•CWTSAnnualReports1986-2010•FacultyReportsLeidenUniversity1995,2000•295evaluationreportsissuedduringtheVSNUprotocolevaluations(1994,1998)andSEP(2003,2009)•Evaluationprotocols(VSNU1993,1994,1998,SEP2003,2009,2015)•Legislativeandpolicydocuments
Page 5
Emergenceofquantitativeresearchassessmentasajurisdiction
• Technologicalchange:ScienceCitationIndex
• Sciencepolicydemands:Fundingdecisions,prioritiesandaccountability
– Netherlands:expertiseinpolicy-relevantsciencestudieswasbuiltupinaministerialdepartment,anadvisorycouncilandinsciencestudiesgroupatLeidenUniversity
– MinistryofEducationandScienceandResearchCouncilNWOfundlong-termresearchprogramsinScienceandTechnologyindicators
Page 6
ProfessionalclaimofCWTSasanexpertorganization
ProfessionalclaimofCWTS– Bibliometricsasadiagnostictool:
„Theessenceisthatwecameupwithatoolthatenabledexpertsinthefieldtoidentifyemerginggroups.Thatwaswhatitwasallabout- emergingordeclining.“ (InterviewHenkMoed)
Bibliometricsas„quantitativecoreofpeerreview“ (vanRaan1996):“Thereforethesupportofpeerreviewbybibliometricsisa(sic!)indispensablepartoftheevaluationprocedure.“ (vanRaan1999:418)
Page 7
CognitivebasisofCWTSclaimtoexpertise
Cognitiveclaimbasedon
•Meticulouscollectionandcarefulprocessingofpublicationandcitationdata•methodoffieldnormalization•thecreationofamodifiedin-houseversionoftheISI-databasesspecificallyadaptedtopurposesofresearchevaluation(Moedetal.1995)
Page 8
CommunicationofCWTScognitiveclaimintheacademicfield
1985 1990 1995 2000
Page 9
CWTSsocialclaimtoexpertise
1985 1990 1995 2000
Page 10
AcceptanceofCWTSsocialclaims–clientstructure
N=492CWTScontractresearchreports
Page 11
Formativephase1986-1993
Page 12
Expansionphase1994-2007
Page 13
Consolidationanddiversificationphase2008-2015
Page 14
ThreatstoCWTSpositionintheexpertfieldofevaluativebibliometrics
N=295EvaluationreportsfromVSNUProtocolandSEPevaluations
Page 15
CWTScognitiveclaimstoconsolidateitspositionintheexpertfield
2005 2010 2015 2020
Page 16
CWTSsocialclaimstoconsolidateitspositionintheexpertfield
2005 2010 2015 2020
Page 17
Thankyouforyouattention.
Questionsandcomments:[email protected]
Page 18
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