Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1710.04004v1

In their article "Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship," Thomas Franssen and Paul Wouters explore how bibliometrics, a quantitative method used to analyze scientific publications, has represented the humanities throughout history. They argue that bibliometrics offers a particular representation of science by highlighting certain elements of publications while obscuring others. This means that a bibliometric analysis is always performative, bringing a particular representation of science into being which can potentially influence the science system itself. The authors analyze bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2016 that studies the humanities empirically, distinguishing between two periods of scholarship. The first period from 1965 to 1989 is characterized by a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price index as well as small samples of journal publications as data sources. The second period from the mid-1980s up until today is characterized by a new hinterland - that of science policy and research evaluation - in which bibliometric methods become embedded. Throughout this history, the humanities have often been compared to other scientific domains or to a general notion of sciences. By examining these representations over time, Franssen and Wouters shed light on how bibliometrics shapes our understanding of science as well as its impact on different fields within academia.

• - Bibliometrics is a quantitative method used to analyze scientific publications
• - Bibliometrics offers a particular representation of science by highlighting certain elements of publications while obscuring others
• - A bibliometric analysis is always performative, bringing a particular representation of science into being which can potentially influence the science system itself
• - Franssen and Wouters analyzed bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2016 that studies the humanities empirically, distinguishing between two periods of scholarship
• - The first period from 1965 to 1989 is characterized by a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price index as well as small samples of journal publications as data sources
• - The second period from the mid-1980s up until today is characterized by a new hinterland - that of science policy and research evaluation - in which bibliometric methods become embedded
• - Throughout this history, the humanities have often been compared to other scientific domains or to a general notion of sciences
• - By examining these representations over time, Franssen and Wouters shed light on how bibliometrics shapes our understanding of science as well as its impact on different fields within academia.

Bibliometrics is a way to study scientific publications using numbers. It shows some things about the publications and hides other things. When people use bibliometrics, they can change how science works. Franssen and Wouters looked at how people have used bibliometrics to study humanities over time. They found that people started using it in the 1960s and kept using it until now. By looking at this history, they learned how bibliometrics affects how we think about science and different subjects in school. Definitions- Bibliometrics: a way to study scientific publications using numbers - Empirically: based on observations or experience rather than theory or pure logic - Hinterland: an area lying beyond what is visible or known

Science and Its Significant Other: Representing the Humanities in Bibliometric Scholarship

Bibliometrics is a quantitative method used to analyze scientific publications, but how has it represented the humanities throughout history? In their article “Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship”, Thomas Franssen and Paul Wouters explore this question. They argue that bibliometrics offers a particular representation of science by highlighting certain elements of publications while obscuring others. This means that a bibliometric analysis is always performative, bringing a particular representation of science into being which can potentially influence the science system itself.

A Historical Overview

The authors analyze bibliometric scholarship between 1965 and 2016 that studies the humanities empirically, distinguishing between two periods of scholarship. The first period from 1965 to 1989 is characterized by a sociological theoretical framework, the development and use of the Price index as well as small samples of journal publications as data sources. The second period from the mid-1980s up until today is characterized by a new hinterland - that of science policy and research evaluation - in which bibliometric methods become embedded.

Representations Over Time

Throughout this history, the humanities have often been compared to other scientific domains or to a general notion of sciences. By examining these representations over time, Franssen and Wouters shed light on how bibliometrics shapes our understanding of science as well as its impact on different fields within academia. For example, they note that during both periods there was an emphasis on comparing disciplines or fields rather than individual researchers or institutions – something which could be seen as privileging certain areas over others when it comes to research funding decisions based on such analyses. They also point out how some aspects are highlighted more than others when it comes to representing knowledge production in different disciplines; for instance, citation counts were used more frequently than other measures such as book sales or readership surveys when analyzing publication output in various fields within academia. This suggests that certain forms of knowledge production are privileged over others when using bibliometrics for research evaluation purposes – something which could lead to an unbalanced view if not taken into account properly when making decisions about resource allocation across disciplines within higher education systems worldwide.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Franssen and Wouters provide an important insight into how bibliometrics has represented knowledge production in different fields throughout history – particularly those related to humanistic inquiry – with implications for current debates around research evaluation practices across academia today. Their work highlights how we need to take into account multiple perspectives when considering what constitutes ‘good’ knowledge production so that we can ensure fair resource allocation across all disciplines within higher education systems worldwide