Using the Norwegian model in a Swedish setting:
consequences for social sciences and humanities
Nordforsk Workshop on Bibliometrics for the Social Sciences and
Humanities, 10 October 2012
Karin Henning
Gothenburg University Library
Digital Services, Team for Publishing and Bibliometric Services
www.gu.s
e
Agenda
• The bibliometric model for allocating research funds at the University
of Gothenburg
• The Norwegian model at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the
Faculty of Arts (Humanities) – views and concerns from researches
• Issue/problem: Consequences of importing a foreign model to a
Swedish research setting – how Norwegian is the Norwegian model?
• Methods & Results & Conclusions
www.gu.s
e
New bibliometric model for allocating funds to the
faculties
All faculties are choosing their own model - relative change (for a
overlapping 3-year interval) in the faculty’s model is calculated
Science, Medicine/Odontology/Health/Care Sciences : WoS , Brute
Force
Fine Applied and Performing Arts: own (publication points)
Arts/Humanities, Social Sciences, Business/Economics/Law, Education,
IT: Norweigan model
www.gu.s
e
Views and concerns on the Norwegian model from
the humanities/social sciences
- Points given monographs too small (relation between level 1 and 2),
easier publishing many articles (”the death of the monograph”)
- ”My research area is not represented in the Norwegian research
community”
- ”Publishing in Swedish important in my discipline, the model will not
reward this research”
- Poor outcome of research areas with a major conference publishing
- Fractional counting discourage co-publishing
- Norwegian model meant to measure larger volumes (national
indicator), not suitable for allocation in a local environment
www.gu.s
e
Views and concerns on the Norwegian model from
the humanities/social sciences
- Points given monographs too small (relation between level 1 and 2),
easier publishing many articles (”the death of the monograph”)
- ”My research area is not represented in the Norwegian research
community”
- ”Publishing in Swedish important in my discipline, the model will not
reward this research”
- Poor outcome of research areas with a major conference publishing
- Fractional counting discourage co-publishing
- Norwegian model meant to measure larger volumes (national
indicator), not suitable for departmental allocation
www.gu.s
e
The problem...
Is the Norwegian list ”nationally colored”?
If so, how is it affecting the local allocation model ? Does it differ
between research areas?
www.gu.s
e
• Comparing the Norwegian and Danish lists – possible areas in SSH
with a lack of consensus of what can be regarded as ”high quality
channels”
• Outcome for SSH at GU – differences between research areas
www.gu.s
e
Data and methods
• Norwegian and Danish lists from 2011 downloaded
• Matched (local sql database) with local publication database
• Faculty of Social Sciences and Faculty of Arts (Humanities)
publication years 2007-2011
• Only journal articles (level 2 classification for Danish publishers
available in 2013)
• No extra credits for co-publication (full fractionalization)
www.gu.s
e
Comparison of the Norwegian and Danish lists
15105 journals were found in both lists
2084 journals with level 1 in Norwegian and level 2 in Danish or vice versa
= 14 % of the journals have different judgements
Top Norwegian ”Fagområden” with different judgements in SSH:
Journals with
Journals with different different judgements,
Research area ("Fagområde")
Sum journals judgements
share of ”Fagområde”
Dance (Dans)
9
3
33%
German and Dutch (Tysk og nederlandsk)
64
21
33%
Interdisciplinary Humanities (Tverrfaglig humanistisk forskning)
89
24
27%
Gender Research (Kjønnsforskning)
67
18
27%
Law (Rettsvitenskap)
303
80
26%
Archaology (Arkeologi og konservering)
198
52
26%
Theology and Religion (Teologi og religionsvitenskap)
278
73
26%
Social Anthropology (Sosialantropologi)
143
32
22%
Greek and Latin (Gresk og latin)
162
36
22%
Architecture and Design (Arkitektur og design)
87
19
22%
www.gu.s
e
Faculty of Social Sciences
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
School of Public Administration
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
Department of Psychology
Department of Social Work
Department of Sociology and Work Science
Department of Political Science
School of Global Studies
Whole faculty:
Articles analyzed: 1389 (243 not approved)
Norwegian points: 1113, Danish points: 1308
Norwegian level 2: 21 %, Danish level 2: 30 %
www.gu.s
e
Correlation between models, share level 2
publications - output for departments at the Faculty
of Social Sciences
Correlation score: 0,84
Department
Percentage level 2 NOR Percentage level 2 DAN
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
34%
41%
Department of Political Science
28%
53%
Department of Psychology
16%
21%
Department of Social Work
32%
32%
Department of Sociology and Work Science
20%
30%
Other centres at the faculty
23%
36%
School of Global Studies
18%
32%
School of Public Administration
3%
6%
www.gu.s
e
Correlation between models, share level 2
publications - output for departments at the Faculty
of Social Sciences
Correlation score: 0,84
Department
Percentage level 2 NOR Percentage level 2 DAN
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
34%
41%
Department of Political Science
28%
53%
Department of Psychology
16%
21%
Department of Social Work
32%
32%
Department of Sociology and Work Science
20%
30%
Other centres at the faculty
23%
36%
School of Global Studies
18%
32%
School of Public Administration
3%
6%
www.gu.s
e
Correlation between models, output departments sum of points
Correlation score: 0,98
Department
Sum of NOR Share of NOR
points
points
Sum of DAN Share of DAN
points
points
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
57
5%
57
4%
Department of Political Science
201
18%
269
21%
Department of Psychology
285
26%
308
24%
Department of Social Work
183
16%
191
15%
Department of Sociology and Work Science
149
13%
186
14%
Other centres at the faculty
61
5%
74
6%
School of Global Studies
157
14%
200
15%
School of Public Administration
21
2%
22
2%
1113
100%
1308
100%
Total
www.gu.s
e
Faculty of Arts (Humanities)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department of Cultural Sciences
Department of Historical Studies
Department of Languages and Literatures
Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science
Department of Swedish
Whole faculty:
Analyzed articles: 1177 (449 not approved)
Norwegian points: 835, Danish points: 849
Norwegian level 2: 16 %, Danish level 2: 14 %
www.gu.s
e
Correlation between models, share level 2
publications - output for departments at the Faculty
of Arts
Correlation score: 0,68
Department
Percentage level 2 NOR Percentage level 2 DAN
Department of Cultural Studies
16%
16%
Department of Historical Studies
17%
30%
Department of Languages and Literatures
17%
8%
Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion
14%
12%
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science
19%
23%
Department of Swedish
7%
5%
www.gu.s
e
Correlation between models, output departments sum of points
Correlation score: 0,98
Department
Sum of NOR Share of NOR Sum of DAN Share of DAN
points
points
points
points
Department of Cultural Sciences
57
7%
57
7%
Departement of Historical Studies
76
9%
96
11%
Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion
157
19%
166
20%
Department of Languages and Literatures
284
34%
256
30%
Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science
171
20%
188
22%
Department of Swedish
91
11%
87
10%
Total
835
100%
849
100%
www.gu.s
e
Using the Norwegian model in a Swedish setting:
consequences for social sciences and humanities
• Weak incentive level 2
Lack of concensus can question the degree of legitimacy
• Functional ? Correlation total outcome
• Need for a Swedish publication channel list
www.gu.s
e
Thanks for your attention!
karin.henning@ub.gu.se
www.gu.s
e