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 Using the Norwegian model in a Swedish setting: consequences for social sciences and humanities

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

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

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

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

The problem... Is the Norwegian list ”nationally colored”? If so, how is it affecting the local allocation model ? Does it differ between research areas?

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

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 Only journal articles (level 2 classification for Danish publishers available in 2013) No extra credits for co-publication (full fractionalization)

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 : Comparison of the Norwegian and Danish lists Research area ("Fagområde")Sum journals Journals with different judgements Journals with different judgements, share of ”Fagområde” Dance (Dans)9333% German and Dutch (Tysk og nederlandsk)642133% Interdisciplinary Humanities (Tverrfaglig humanistisk forskning)892427% Gender Research (Kjønnsforskning)671827% Law (Rettsvitenskap) % Archaology (Arkeologi og konservering) % Theology and Religion (Teologi og religionsvitenskap) % Social Anthropology (Sosialantropologi) % Greek and Latin (Gresk og latin) % Architecture and Design (Arkitektur og design)871922%

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 %

Correlation between models, share level 2 publications - output for departments at the Faculty of Social Sciences Correlation score: 0,84 DepartmentPercentage level 2 NORPercentage level 2 DAN Department of Journalism and Mass Communication34%41% Department of Political Science28%53% Department of Psychology16%21% Department of Social Work32% Department of Sociology and Work Science20%30% Other centres at the faculty23%36% School of Global Studies18%32% School of Public Administration3%6%

Correlation between models, share level 2 publications - output for departments at the Faculty of Social Sciences Correlation score: 0,84 DepartmentPercentage level 2 NORPercentage level 2 DAN Department of Journalism and Mass Communication34%41% Department of Political Science28%53% Department of Psychology16%21% Department of Social Work32% Department of Sociology and Work Science20%30% Other centres at the faculty23%36% School of Global Studies18%32% School of Public Administration3%6%

Correlation between models, output departments - sum of points Correlation score: 0,98 Department Sum of NOR points Share of NOR points Sum of DAN points Share of DAN points Department of Journalism and Mass Communication575%574% Department of Political Science20118%26921% Department of Psychology28526%30824% Department of Social Work18316%19115% Department of Sociology and Work Science14913%18614% Other centres at the faculty615%746% School of Global Studies15714%20015% School of Public Administration212%222% Total % %

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 %

Correlation between models, share level 2 publications - output for departments at the Faculty of Arts Correlation score: 0,68 DepartmentPercentage level 2 NORPercentage level 2 DAN Department of Cultural Studies16% Department of Historical Studies17%30% Department of Languages and Literatures17%8% Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion14%12% Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science19%23% Department of Swedish7%5%

Correlation between models, output departments - sum of points Correlation score: 0,98 Department Sum of NOR points Share of NOR points Sum of DAN points Share of DAN points Department of Cultural Sciences577%577% Departement of Historical Studies 769%9611% Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion 15719%16620% Department of Languages and Literatures 28434%25630% Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science 17120%18822% Department of Swedish 9111%8710% Total835100%849100%

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

Thanks for your attention!