多神教和伞形学科中的引文精英:丹麦和英国科学中的分层和集中模式

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Minerva Pub Date : 2024-02-24 DOI:10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7
Alexander Kladakis, Philippe Mongeon, Carter W. Bloch
{"title":"多神教和伞形学科中的引文精英:丹麦和英国科学中的分层和集中模式","authors":"Alexander Kladakis, Philippe Mongeon, Carter W. Bloch","doi":"10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion of science as a stratified system is clearly manifested in the markedly uneven distribution of productivity, rewards, resources, and recognition. Although previous studies have shown that institutional environments for conducting research differ significantly between national science systems, disciplines, and subfields, it remains to be shown whether any systematic variations and patterns in inequalities exist among researchers in different national and domain specific settings. This study investigates the positioning of citation elites as opposed to ‘ordinary’ researchers by way of examining three dimensions of concentration (accumulation of publications and citations, specialisation, and institutional concentration) in biology, economics and physics in Denmark and the UK. Across all three dimensions, we put Richard Whitley’s bipartite theory to the test, suggesting a nexus between the intellectual structure of a discipline and the configuration of its elite. The study draws on a dataset of researchers who published most of their publications in either physics, biology, or economics over the 1980–2018 period and with at least one publication in 2017–2018 while affiliated to either a British or a Danish university. We find higher degrees of concentration in the UK compared to Denmark, and that physics and biology respectively display the greatest and lowest degree of concentration. Similar patterns in disciplinary differences are observed in both countries, suggesting that concentration patterns are largely rooted in disciplinary cultures and merely amplified by the national context.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citation Elites in Polytheistic and Umbrella Disciplines: Patterns of Stratification and Concentration in Danish and British Science\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Kladakis, Philippe Mongeon, Carter W. Bloch\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The notion of science as a stratified system is clearly manifested in the markedly uneven distribution of productivity, rewards, resources, and recognition. Although previous studies have shown that institutional environments for conducting research differ significantly between national science systems, disciplines, and subfields, it remains to be shown whether any systematic variations and patterns in inequalities exist among researchers in different national and domain specific settings. This study investigates the positioning of citation elites as opposed to ‘ordinary’ researchers by way of examining three dimensions of concentration (accumulation of publications and citations, specialisation, and institutional concentration) in biology, economics and physics in Denmark and the UK. Across all three dimensions, we put Richard Whitley’s bipartite theory to the test, suggesting a nexus between the intellectual structure of a discipline and the configuration of its elite. The study draws on a dataset of researchers who published most of their publications in either physics, biology, or economics over the 1980–2018 period and with at least one publication in 2017–2018 while affiliated to either a British or a Danish university. We find higher degrees of concentration in the UK compared to Denmark, and that physics and biology respectively display the greatest and lowest degree of concentration. Similar patterns in disciplinary differences are observed in both countries, suggesting that concentration patterns are largely rooted in disciplinary cultures and merely amplified by the national context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学是一个分层系统,这一概念明显体现在生产力、奖励、资源和认可的分配明显不均上。尽管以往的研究表明,不同国家的科学体系、学科和子领域之间开展研究的制度环境存在显著差异,但不同国家和特定领域的研究人员之间是否存在系统性的不平等差异和模式,仍有待证明。本研究通过考察丹麦和英国生物学、经济学和物理学的三个集中度(论文和引文的积累、专业化和机构集中度),研究了引文精英相对于 "普通 "研究人员的定位。在所有三个维度上,我们都对理查德-惠特利(Richard Whitley)的两元理论进行了检验,认为一门学科的知识结构与其精英配置之间存在联系。这项研究利用了一个研究人员数据集,这些研究人员在1980-2018年期间发表的大部分论文涉及物理学、生物学或经济学,并且在2017-2018年期间至少发表过一篇论文,同时隶属于英国大学或丹麦大学。我们发现,与丹麦相比,英国的集中度更高,物理学和生物学的集中度分别最高和最低。两国的学科差异模式相似,这表明集中模式在很大程度上植根于学科文化,只是被国家背景放大了而已。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Citation Elites in Polytheistic and Umbrella Disciplines: Patterns of Stratification and Concentration in Danish and British Science

Citation Elites in Polytheistic and Umbrella Disciplines: Patterns of Stratification and Concentration in Danish and British Science

The notion of science as a stratified system is clearly manifested in the markedly uneven distribution of productivity, rewards, resources, and recognition. Although previous studies have shown that institutional environments for conducting research differ significantly between national science systems, disciplines, and subfields, it remains to be shown whether any systematic variations and patterns in inequalities exist among researchers in different national and domain specific settings. This study investigates the positioning of citation elites as opposed to ‘ordinary’ researchers by way of examining three dimensions of concentration (accumulation of publications and citations, specialisation, and institutional concentration) in biology, economics and physics in Denmark and the UK. Across all three dimensions, we put Richard Whitley’s bipartite theory to the test, suggesting a nexus between the intellectual structure of a discipline and the configuration of its elite. The study draws on a dataset of researchers who published most of their publications in either physics, biology, or economics over the 1980–2018 period and with at least one publication in 2017–2018 while affiliated to either a British or a Danish university. We find higher degrees of concentration in the UK compared to Denmark, and that physics and biology respectively display the greatest and lowest degree of concentration. Similar patterns in disciplinary differences are observed in both countries, suggesting that concentration patterns are largely rooted in disciplinary cultures and merely amplified by the national context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
×
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