Abstract
In a questionnaire study Swedish university scientists in different research areas were asked about their conceptions of scientific quality. The items concerned relationships between quality and the research effort, the researcher, the research environment, research effects, research policy and organization, research financing and research evaluation. 224 persons (56% of the sample) answered. Results showed that researchers shared views on scientific quality, but there were also a number of differences between soft and hard sciences. It is concluded that the differences largely support the distinction between “human” and natural sciences, as well as the one between pre-paradigmatic and paradigmatic sciences. Implications for the evaluation of research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
I acknowledge Professor HenryMontgomery, University of Stockholm, for constructive criticism of the study. Also, I want to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. An earlier and more extensive version of this paper is to be found inGöteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 3 as one of five papers in a Ph. D. thesis (S. Hemlin,Quality in science. Researchers' conceptions and judgements, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Göteborg, 1991). The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Board of Universities and Colleges and a grant from the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Science Foundation.
In a study byS. Cole, J. R. Cole, G. A. Simon, Chance and consensus in peer review,Science, 214 (1981) 881–885, they touched upon this question when studying judgements of applications to research projects at the National Science Foundation in the U. S. A. The results were discouraging when it comes to the reliability of peer judgements. They draw the conclusion that peers have different views of what good science is or should be.
S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Scientists' conceptions of scientific quality,Science Studies, 1 (1990) 73–81.
See note No. 3..
W. Dilthey, Introduction to the Human Sciences. An Attempt to Lay a Foundation for the Study of Society and History, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig/Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1923/1988.
M. Mulkay,Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1979.
J. M. Chase, Normative criteria for scientific publication,The American Sociologist, 5 (1970) 262–265.
B.C. Griffith (Ed.),Key Papers in Information Science, Xerox copy, Undated.
T. S. Kuhn,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd. ed.), The University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1970.
H. Montgomery, S. Hemlin, A crossdisciplinary investigation of professorial evaluation documents,Göteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 4., (part of the dissertation referred to in note No. 1.)
See note No. 3..
J. P. Rushton, H. G. Murray, S. V. Paunonen, Personality, research creativity, and teaching effectiveness in university professors,Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 93–116.
See note No. 3..
See note No. 1 I acknowledge Professor HenryMontgomery, University of Stockholm, for constructive criticism of the study. Also, I want to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. An earlier and more extensive version of this paper is to be found inGöteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 3 as one of five papers in a Ph. D. thesis (S. Hemlin,Quality in science. Researchers' conceptions and judgements, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Göteborg, 1991). The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Board of Universities and Colleges and a grant from the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Science Foundation. as to the technical report this paper is based on.
Reference structures of the principal component analyses are presented in the technical report (see note No. 1). I acknowledge Professor HenryMontgomery, University of Stockholm, for constructive criticism of the study. Also, I want to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. An earlier and more extensive version of this paper is to be found inGöteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 3 as one of five papers in a Ph. D. thesis (S. Hemlin,Quality in science. Researchers' conceptions and judgements, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Göteborg, 1991). The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Board of Universities and Colleges and a grant from the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Science Foundation.
See notes Nos 1 and 3. I acknowledge Professor HenryMontgomery, University of Stockholm, for constructive criticism of the study. Also, I want to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript. An earlier and more extensive version of this paper is to be found inGöteborg Psychological Reports, 21 (1991) No. 3 as one of five papers in a Ph. D. thesis (S. Hemlin,Quality in science. Researchers' conceptions and judgements, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Göteborg, 1991). The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Board of Universities and Colleges and a grant from the Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Science Foundation.S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Scientists' conceptions of scientific quality,Science Studies, 1 (1990) 73–81.
This analysis was performed inHemlin andMontgomery (1990). See note No. 3.S. Hemlin, H. Montgomery, Scientists' conceptions of scientific quality,Science Studies, 1 (1990) 73–81.
Whether these results hold across nations is an empirical question to be answered. The sample drawn reflects the Swedish research communities of the five areas mentioned above. (c.f.T. Luukkonen,Citations in the Rhetorical, Reward, and Communication Systems of Science, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere, 1990, p. 22).
See note No. 3..
I. I. Mitroff, Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists,American Sociological Review, 39 (1974) 579–595.
J. M. Neale, R. M. Liebert,Science and Behavior. An Introduction to Methods of Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1973/1980.
See note No. 13.. Besides from the document analysis findings, the results of this study are largely supported by interview data (see note No. 3).
A. Christensen, Släpp in människorna. (Let the people in).Dagens Nyheter, Humanvetenskapliga dagar 1985 (bilaga) (1985, May 7) 23.
M. Brohult, Humaniora i kris eller på uppgång? (Are the humanities in a crises or on the rise?),Svenska Dagbladet, (1987, May 26).
B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish Jr., R. A. Neimeyer, A. C. Houts (Eds),Psychology of Science. Contributions to Metascience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hemlin, S. Scientific quality in the eyes of the scientist. A questionnaire study. Scientometrics 27, 3–18 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017752
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017752