The crisis of representations. How is a successful outcome possible? The case of scientometrics

Publication Type:

Language:

Transliteration of original Title: 
Krizis reprezentatsii. Kak vozmozhen uspeshnyi iskhod? Sluchai naukometrii
Author(s): 
Victor Kupriyanov
Saint Petersburg State University
Lada Shipovalova
Saint Petersburg State University
Issue number: 
No.1 (Vol.51)
Pages: 
171-187
Abstract: 

The article deals with the problem of representation and considers such points as its necessity in science, contemporary crisis of representation and its possible outcome. The paper also scrutinizes the case of representation of scientific researches by means of scientometrics methods. The need of the representations in science is determined by three points: absence of the direct access to the fact, certainty of the fact which exceeds the certainty of the immediate experience and consolidation of the scientific community by any stable representation. The sense of crisis concerns the confusion of the representation with the reality and the fact that it hides the reality as well. The scientific research is necessarily represented by means of scientometrics methods, which is connected with the unintelligibility of the idea of the scientific researches to the outsiders. The idea of quantitatively estimated scientific outcome replaces the essential, qualitative intentions and impedes to achieve them. This fact evokes the criticism against scientometrics methods from the side of scientific community. The authors suggest the ways to overcome this crisis. One of the steps against it implies the attention to the genesis of such type of representation. This means keeping in mind the fact that scientometrics appeared on the basis of the scientific community’s necessity to search for the information about already existing researches and to disseminate the ideas.

Keywords: 
representation, scientometrics, scientific community, fact, effectiveness, assessment
References: 

Daston L. The coming into Being of Scientific Objects. Introduction. In: L. Daston. (ed.) Biographies of Scientific Objects. Chicago & L.: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 1-14.

Daston L., Galison P. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books, 2007. 501 p.

Dear P. From Truth to Disinterestedness in Seventeenth Century. In: Social Studies of Science, 1992. no. 22, pp. 619-631.

Daston L. Nauchnaja objektivnost so slovami i bez slov [Scientific objectivity with words and without words]. In:  Nauka i nauchnost' v istoricheskoj perspective – Science in historical perspective. Saint-Petersburg: Aleteia, 2007, pp. 37-71. (In Russian).

Elliott D. B. Salami slicing and the SPU: Publish or Perish? In: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2013, vol.6, no 33, pp. 625-626.

Garfield E. From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. In: Journal of Informetrics, 2009, no. 3, pp. 173-179.

Garfield E. Tracing the influence of J.D. Bernal on the World of Science through Citation Analysis. [http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/bernaldublin0907.pdf, accessed on 18.09.2016]

Granovskiy Ju.V. Mozhno li izmerjat' nauku? [Can science be measured?]. In: Internet-zhurnal "Naukovedenie", no 1, 2000. (In Russian). [http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/BIO/NALIMOV2.HTM, accessed on 30.08.2016]

Harhordin O.V. Predislovie redaktora [The Afterword of the editor]. In: Latour B. Novogo vremeni ne bylo [We were never modern]. Saint Petersburg: EUSPb, 2006, pp. 5-56. (In Russian).

Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., Rijcke S., Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. In: Nature, 2015, vol., 520, no. 7548, pp. 429–431.

Igra v cyfir', ili kak teper' ocenivajut trud uchenogo [A numbers game]. Moscow: MCNMO, 2011. 72p. [http://www.mccme.ru/free-books/bibliometric.pdf, accessed on 10.09.2016] (In Russian)

Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma [Kritik der reinen Vernunft]. Saint-Petersburg: IKA «Taim-Aut», 1993. 478 p. (In Russian).

Kasavin I.T. Kak vozmozhna politicheskaja filosofija nauki? [How is political philosophy of science possible?]. Epistemology and philosophy of science, 2015, no. 45,  pp. 5-15. (In Russian).

Knorr-Cetina K. Nauka kak prakticheskaja racional'nost' [Science as practical rationality]. In:  Ionin L.G. Filosofija i metodologija empiricheskoy sociologii [Philosophy and methodology of empirical sociology]. Moscow: GU VSHe, 2004, pp. 318-330.  (In Russian).

Knuuttila T. Models, representation, and mediation. In: Philosophy of Science, 2005, vol., 72, no. 5, pp. 1260-1271.

Kuznetsova N.I., Rozov M.A., Shrejder Ju.A. Objekt issledovanija – nauka. [An object of studies – science]. Moscow: Novyi khronograf, 2012. 560 p. (In Russian).

Latour B. On Partial Existence of Existing and Nonexisting Objects. In: L. Daston. (ed.) Biographies of Scientific Objects Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 247-269.

Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987. 282 p.

Latour B. The more Manipulations, The Better. In: C. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. Lynch, S. Woolgar (eds.). Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited. Cambridge Mass. & London: The MIT Press, 2014, pp. 347-350.

Motroshilova N. V. Sistema RINC primenitel'no k filosofskim naukam [Russian scientific citation index in reference to philosophy]. In: Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii – Higher education in Russia, 2012,  no. 3, pp. 3-17. (In Russian).

Mul'chenko Z., Nalimov V. Naukometrija. [Scientometrics]. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. 1092 p. (In Russian).

Nederhof A. J. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A review. In: Scientometrics, 2006, vol., 66, no 1, pp. 81-100.

Vannini Ph (ed.). Non-Representational Methodologies. Re-envisioning Research. New York & London: Routledge, 2015. 194 p.

Porter T. M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. 325 p.

Rheinberger, H.J. Chasticy v citoplazme: puti i sud'by odnogo nauchnogo objekta [Cytoplasmic particles: the trajectory of a scientific object]. In: Nauka i nauchnost' v istoricheskoj perspective [Science in historical perspective]. Saint-Petersburg: EUSPb, Aleteia, 2007, pp. 284-316. (In Russian).

 C. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. Lynch, S.  Woolgar (eds.). Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited. Cambridge Mass. & London: The MIT Press, 2014. 366 p.

 Rheinberger H.J. Towards a History of Epistemic Things. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. 326 p.

Rorty  R. Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. 226 p.

Vartovskiy M. Modeli. Reprezentacija i nauchnoe ponimanie. [Models:

representation and scientific explanation]. Moscow: Progress, 1988. 507 p. (In Russian).

Wesel M., Wyatt S., Haaf J. What a difference a colon makes: how superficial factors influence subsequent citation. In: Scientometrics, 2014, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 1601-1615.

DOI: 
10.5840/eps201751117