IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bit/bsrysr/v14y2023i1p131-152n8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro

Author

Listed:
  • Vučković Dijana

    (University of Montenegro, Faculty of Philosophy)

  • Pekovic Sanja

    (University of Montenegro, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management)

  • Popović Stevo

    (University of Montenegro, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education)

  • Janinovic Jovana

    (University of Montenegro, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management)

Abstract

Background A noteworthy attempt has recently been made to extend the same or analogous evaluation criteria traditionally employed in natural and technical sciences to social sciences and humanities domains. However, this endeavor has sparked considerable reactions among researchers, leading to robust discussions and debates. Objectives This research aims to describe the scholars’ perception of the research quality evaluation in Montenegro's social sciences and humanities. Methods/Approach Focus-group interviews in which 25 interlocutors from various fields of social sciences and humanities were used. The participants discussed the given topic in five focus group interviews and were prompted by questions that specified the topic. Results Different perceptions occur within the social sciences and humanities and are visible within individual areas. Respondents think that the current way of evaluating the results of research work in social sciences and humanities ignores the specificities of research methodologies and practices. Conclusions The respondents show a common element of perception, i.e., that the research quality evaluation in the social sciences and humanities must be multidimensional, meaning that it must include the necessary indicators adjusted to concrete research field as much as possible but also contain agreeably qualitative criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Vučković Dijana & Pekovic Sanja & Popović Stevo & Janinovic Jovana, 2023. "Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 131-152, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bit:bsrysr:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:131-152:n:8
    DOI: 10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alesia Zuccala, 2012. "Quality and influence in literary work: evaluating the 'educated imagination'," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 229-241, August.
    2. A. J. Nederhof & R. A. Zwaan, 1991. "Quality judgments of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 42(5), pages 332-340, June.
    3. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    4. Hunady, Jan & Orviska, Marta & Pisar, Peter, 2017. "The Link between Human Resources in Science and Technology and Regional Economic Development in the EU," Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference (2017), Dubrovnik, Croatia, in: Proceedings of the ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 7-9 September 2017, pages 405-411, IRENET - Society for Advancing Innovation and Research in Economy, Zagreb.
    5. Grant Lewison, 2001. "Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 89-95, August.
    6. Éric Archambault & Étienne Vignola-Gagné & Grégoire Côté & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingrasb, 2006. "Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 329-342, September.
    7. Elizabeth S. Vieira & José A. N. F. Gomes, 2011. "An impact indicator for researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 607-629, November.
    8. Martin Grančay & Jolita Vveinhardt & Ērika Šumilo, 2017. "Publish or perish: how Central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1813-1837, June.
    9. Björn Hellqvist, 2010. "Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 310-318, February.
    10. Björn Hellqvist, 2010. "Referencing in the humanities and its implications for citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(2), pages 310-318, February.
    11. Claire Donovan, 2007. "The qualitative future of research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 585-597, October.
    12. Nederhof, A. J. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1993. "A bibliometric analysis of six economics research groups: A comparison with peer review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 353-368, August.
    13. John D Brewer, 2011. "The impact of impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 255-256, September.
    14. Linda Butler & Martijn S. Visser, 2006. "Extending citation analysis to non-source items," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 327-343, February.
    15. Niksa Dubreta, 2014. "Integration of Social Sciences and Humanities into Mechanical Engineering Curriculum," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 12(2), pages 137-150.
    16. Oecd, 2011. "The Impact of the 1999 Education Reform in Poland," OECD Education Working Papers 49, OECD Publishing.
    17. Brian M. Belcher & Katherine E. Rasmussen & Matthew R. Kemshaw & Deborah A. Zornes, 2016. "Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17.
    18. Dejan Pajić, 2015. "Globalization of the social sciences in Eastern Europe: genuine breakthrough or a slippery slope of the research evaluation practice?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2131-2150, March.
    19. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Daniela Filippo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2020. "Toward a classification of Spanish scholarly journals in social sciences and humanities considering their impact and visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1709-1732, November.
    2. Ülle Must, 2012. "Alone or together: examples from history research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 527-537, May.
    3. Björn Hammarfelt, 2011. "Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base of literature studies: citation analysis of highly cited monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(3), pages 705-725, March.
    4. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2022. "Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5793-5817, October.
    5. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    6. Beril T. Arik & Engin Arik, 2017. "“Second Language Writing” Publications in Web of Science: A Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    7. Pei-Shan Chi, 2014. "Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1195-1213, November.
    8. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    9. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.
    10. Diana Hicks, 2005. "The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-1.
    11. A. Gaunand & L. Colinet & P.-B. Joly & M. Matt, 2022. "Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 699-721, June.
    12. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    13. A. J. M. Linmans, 2010. "Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 337-354, May.
    14. Moshe Blidstein & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2022. "Towards a new generic framework for citation network generation and analysis in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4275-4297, July.
    15. Ioan Ianoş & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor, 2020. "An Overview of the Dynamics of Relative Research Performance in Central-Eastern Europe Using a Ranking-Based Analysis Derived from SCImago Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-25, July.
    16. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Stefano Fantoni & Viola Folli & Marco Leonetti & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2017. "Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 607-653, July.
    17. Diana Hicks, 2005. "The Four Literatures Of Social Sciences," IBT Journal of Business Studies (JBS), Ilma University, Faculty of Management Science, vol. 1(1), pages 1-20.
    18. Anton J. Nederhof & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F. J. Raan, 2010. "Highly cited non-journal publications in political science, economics and psychology: a first exploration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 363-374, May.
    19. Csomós, György, 2020. "Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals’ research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    20. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social sciences and humanities; research quality; research quality perception; qualitative vs. quantitative evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:bit:bsrysr:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:131-152:n:8. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.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.