Research production in the arts and humanities

This study explored the main factors influencing the research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire was constructed to identify and assess the effects of various factors important for the productivity of the individual researcher as reflected in the number of papers and Ph.D.'s produced. First, respondents were given the opportunity to list in their own words a number of important factors influencing research productivity. Secondly, they evaluated on rating scales the importance of a number of pre-selected factors (e.g. individual characteristics, organisational features, external factors) assumed to be important for research productivity. 50% of a sample of 256 researchers in the humanities responded. Ratings were grouped to produce a number of indices and these were subject to multiple regression analyses. The main results showed that the production of papers was predicted by the number of Ph.D.'s produced and inversely related to the importance of organisational factors. The production of Ph.D.'s was dependent on the year of the Ph.D. and the position of the respondent as well as on the number of papers s/he produced. A number of conclusions were drawn: a) there was support for the academic social position effect also in the humanities; b) organisational factors apparently played a minor role in comparison to individual characteristics in the humanities than in the sciences and; c) the differences in productivity of papers were also related to gender, but not to size, area or language of publications. Implications for further studies were suggested.

[1]  Sven Hemlin,et al.  Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist. A questionnaire study , 1993, Scientometrics.

[2]  C. J. Kasperson,et al.  An Analysis of the Relationship Between Information Sources and Creativity in Scientists and Engineers. , 1978 .

[3]  A. Elzinga.  The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[4]  Jonathan R. Cole,et al.  Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community , 1987 .

[5]  Katarina Prpić.  Empirical Notes on the Quality of Scientific Contributions , 1993 .

[6]  R. Rodgers,et al.  Causal models of publishing productivity in psychology. , 1989 .

[7]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[8]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Assessing the usefulness of bibliometric indicators for the humanities and the social and beha vioural sciences: A comparative study , 1989, Scientometrics.

[9]  Diana Hicks,et al.  Is big really better , 1989 .

[10]  Georg Aichholzer,et al.  Individual publication productivity as a social position effect in academic and industrial research units , 1976 .

[11]  W. D. Garvey.  Communication, the essence of science , 1979 .

[12]  D. Simonton,et al.  Age and outstanding achievement: what do we know after a century of research? , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Donald C. Pelz,et al.  Scientists in Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and Development. , 1968 .

[14]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[15]  Jonathan R. Cole,et al.  Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. , 1982 .

[16]  A. F. J. van Raan,et al.  Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology , 1988 .

[17]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors , 1983, Scientometrics.

[18]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[19]  Mogens N. Pedersen.  John K. Christiansen og Hanne Foss Hansen, Forskningsevaluering i teori og praksis, København: Samfundslitteratur, 1993, 244 s., kr. 175,00. , 1993 .