Science and Religion Studies

Science and Religion Studies

Cirisis in Scientometircs of Human Sciences: a non-positivistic approach in philosophy of science

Document Type : .

Authors
Alireza Monajemi
Gholamhossein Moghaddam Heidari
Associate Professor,Philisophy of Science and Technology Department,History and Philisophy of Science Faculty,Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
10.30465/srs.2023.46216.2091
Abstract
The evaluation of research in the humanities is a controversial topic. In Iran, this debate is often framed in terms of the International Scientific Index (ISI) and paper production. Two main groups can be identified in this debate. One group believes that the emphasis on articles and the ISI leads to the quantification of humanities research, which ultimately damages the quality of the research. The other group believes that common scientometric methods are a reliable and precise standard for all fields, and that the humanities should adapt to these methods. The debate has been characterized by polemical and rhetorical arguments, and its theoretical and epistemological frameworks have been imprecise and chaotic.

The aim of this article is to formulate this polemical debate into an epistemological problem in the philosophy of science, so that it can be properly formulated and understood.

The article is divided into three parts. First, we show that scientometrics has its roots in the work of philosophers of science. However, over time, this connection has been broken, and the positivist view of science has come to dominate. This has led to the current crisis in scientometrics.

In the second part, we argue that the understanding of this crisis depends on a return to the non-positivist approach in the philosophy of science. This approach sees science as based on the research practices of a research community, rather than as a set of true propositions. By uncovering the differences between the natural sciences and the humanities, we conclude that the contemporary scientometric criteria cannot be applied to the humanities.

In the third part, we argue that criticizing common scientometric methods and highlighting their crisis does not mean that the evaluation of humanities research is impossible or unattainable. However, before defining a new set of criteria, we need to conduct philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and historical studies of research communities in the humanities.
Keywords
Scientometirc
Philosophy of Science
Crisis
Positivism
Research practice
Research community &emsp
منجمی, علیرضا. (1396). درنگی بر مفهوم علوم انسانی آلمانی (Geiteswissenschaft). روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی, 23(91), 29-48.
نوروزی چاکلی، ع. (1400). آشنایی با علم‌سنجی؛ مبانی، مفاهیم، روابط و ریشه‌ها، تهران، انتشارات سمت.
Babbie, E. (2014). The practice of social research (14th ed.). CENGAGE Learning Custom Publishing, pp 31-40.
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. London: Routledge.
Bonaccorsi, A., Daraio, C., Fantoni, S. et al. (2017). Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences? Scientometrics 112, 607–653.
Christine Tiler , Andy Boddington. (1993). Outputs, structure and process in the evaluation of social science research centres, Research Evaluation 3( 2), August PP 107–116.
Cole, J.R. (2004) Robert K. Merton, 1910–2003. Scientometrics 60, 37–40.
Eto, H. (2008).Scientometric definition of science: In what respect is the humanities more scientific than mathematical and social sciences?. Scientometrics 76, 23–42.
Finkenstaedt, T. (1990) Measuring research performance in the humanities. Scientometrics 19, 409–417.
Glänzel, W., Schoepflin, U. (1994). Little scientometrics, big scientometrics ... and beyond?. Scientometrics 30, 375–384.
Jack Spaapen , Christian Sylvain, (1993) .Assessing the value of research for society, Research Evaluation, 3( 2), PP 117–126.
Kagan, G. (2009). The three cultures: Natural sciences, social sciences and, humanities in 21st century, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wouters, P. (1994). Crisis or critique?. Scientometrics, 30(2-3), 433-437.
Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Universal-Publishers.,Chapter1
Chubin, D. E., & Restivo, S. (1983). The'mooting'of science studies: research programmes and science policy. Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, 55, 83.
Nalimov, V. V. (1981). Faces of science. Philadelphia: Isi Press.
Nederhof, (2006) A. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review. Scientometrics 66, 81–100.از
Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (2016). Humanities scholars’ conceptions of research quality. Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures, 43-69.
Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
Sadegh-Zadeh, K. (2015). Science, Medicine, and Rationality. In: Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 119. Springer, Dordrecht.
Shapiro, Fred R. "Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing, and citation analysis: The neglected legal literature." Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43.5 (1992): 337-339.
Van Raan, A.F.J. (1997). Scientometrics: State-of-the-art. Scientometrics 38, 205–218.
Yang, S., Zheng, M., Yu, Y., & Wolfram, D. (2021). Are Altmetric. com scores effective for research impact evaluation in the social sciences and humanities?. Journal of informetrics, 15(1), 101120.
 
 
Science and Religion Studies
Volume 14, Issue 2 - Serial Number 1
September 2023
Pages 201-218