نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دکترای رشته علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.
2 دانشگاه اصفهان
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Purpose: Evaluating the outputs of the humanities has always been one of the fundamental challenges in scientific systems and research policy-making; unlike empirical sciences that often use quantitative and tangible criteria and indicators to evaluate their outputs, the humanities, due to their qualitative, interdisciplinary, and context-focused nature, require a different evaluation model. Therefore, it is important and necessary to manage the evaluation of scientific outputs of the humanities in a way that is appropriate to their characteristics. Although research has pointed out the characteristics of the humanities and the need for evaluation that is appropriate to them, as well as suggestions in this regard, how to plan for it has received less attention. The present study aims to provide a pattern for a better understanding of the evaluation process and its application in policymaking by systematically analyzing the interactions between the components of humanities output evaluation.
Methodology: The implementation process of this research follows a combined approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously. Initially, we conducted a scoping review to identify and screen sources related to the evaluation of scientific outputs in the humanities. To identify potentially relevant documents, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched without time limits. These sources were then coded using thematic analysis. To arrive at the themes, theoretical, inductive, and descriptive coding methods were used to develop a hierarchical structure of themes (category, domain, and taxonomy). Concurrently, we developed the conceptual structure of the data using bibliometric methods. Conceptual structure in Bibliometrix software (from the R programming language libraries) is a tool for drawing the word co-occurrence network (clustering), thematic map (matrix), and Thematic evolution over time (time course), and as a quantitative method complements qualitative methods. Finally, by integrating the results from these two stages, we created a network of themes related to the subject at hand. The theme network as an illustration tool is a network that summarizes the main themes of a text and presents its underlying pattern. The thematic network is presented graphically to make any hierarchical concepts tangible, to give fluidity to the themes, and to emphasize the interrelationships throughout the network.
Findings: In the first stage, three taxonomies of evaluation approaches, evaluation methods, and evaluation tools were identified with different domains and categories. Evaluation approaches include five domains of evaluation fairness, conceptual consensus, impact citation, formative evaluation, and evaluation policy. Evaluation methods have three domains beyond the article, evaluation criteria, and peer review arm. Two domains of strong infrastructure and technological evaluation can also be included in the category of evaluation tools. In the second stage, the motor, niche, basic, and emerging themes and their changes during the years 2001 to 2025 were identified. Topics related to the evaluation of scientific outputs in the humanities were among the motor themes between 2001 and 2018, well-developed, and highly interconnected. However, these topics tend to become basic and niche topics. This can be seen as an indication of the topics’ embeddedness in research in this area and, consequently, their wider attention in the field of humanities evaluation. The clusters have changed between 2019 and 2025; the largest shift has been from driving, fundamental-driving, and specialized-driving themes to other quadrants. In the third stage, bibliometric results were used to draw relationships between the themes of the first stage of identification and the network of themes for evaluating scientific outputs in the humanities. In all three taxonomies of approaches, methods, and evaluation tools, there is an internal relationship between the domains. In the taxonomy of approaches, the domain of evaluation policy has the most relationships with the other domains, which indicates its underlying nature. In the taxonomy of methods, the domain of evaluation criteria is related to the other two domains, and this may be due to the importance of how evaluation is done.
Conclusion: In policymaking, evaluation should act like a puzzle, meaning that approaches, methods, and evaluation tools should change simultaneously and proportionately. It is necessary to analyze the strengths and weaknesses, as well as the opportunities and threats, of the current situation and plan for the desired outcome. The result of this change in approach can be self-sufficiency in humanities evaluation at the policy-making level and reduced evaluation anxiety at the researcher level.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)