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

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Dijana Vučković, Sanja Pekovic, Stevo Popović, Jovana Janinovic
{"title":"Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro","authors":"Dijana Vučković, Sanja Pekovic, Stevo Popović, Jovana Janinovic","doi":"10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
社会科学与人文学科研究质量评估:以黑山大学为例
摘要背景最近有一个值得注意的尝试,将传统上用于自然科学和技术科学的相同或类似的评估标准扩展到社会科学和人文科学领域。然而,这一努力在研究人员中引发了相当大的反应,导致了激烈的讨论和辩论。目的本研究旨在描述学者对黑山社会科学与人文学科研究质量评价的看法。方法/方法采用焦点小组访谈,访谈对象为来自社会科学和人文科学不同领域的25位对话者。参与者在五个焦点小组访谈中讨论给定的主题,并由指定主题的问题提示。结果在社会科学和人文科学中存在不同的观念,并且在个别领域中是可见的。受访者认为,目前评估社会科学和人文科学研究工作成果的方法忽视了研究方法和实践的特殊性。调查对象普遍认为,社会科学和人文学科的研究质量评价必须是多维的,既要包含尽可能多的针对具体研究领域调整的必要指标,又要包含适宜的定性标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信