University and Discipline Cluster Ranking Systems and the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences

Abstract

This paper addresses one of the weaknesses of many rankings – the exclusion of the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) from university and discipline cluster ranking systems and examines some ways in which this situation can be corrected. In particular, it traces the development of indicators such as ‘target expanded’ citation analysis and tiering or ranking of outlets, including books and conferences as well as journals. It draws on experience in Australia, especially with the attempt to construct consensually derived tiered outlets for numerous disciplines including those in HASS in the context of the introduction of a new Research Quality Framework along the lines of similar exercises in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Hong Kong.

Notes

1. “CHASS Bibliometrics Project: Political Science and History Panels”, ⟨http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20061214CH.php⟩; and Linda Butler, “RQF Pilot Study Project – History and Political Science: Methodology for Citation Analysis”, ⟨http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20061120.php⟩.

2. Available at ⟨http://www.esf.org/research‐areas/humanities/activities/research‐infrastructures.html⟩.

3. ‘The Initial Process for an Australian Ranking of ICT Conferences’ available at ⟨http://www.core.edu.au/⟩.

4. “Workshop on Quantitative measures of Research Performance”, available at ⟨http://repp.anu.edu.au/papers/200505workshop_outcomes.pdf⟩.

5. Available at ⟨http://www.esf.org/research‐areas/humanities/activities/research‐infrastructures/faq‐sheet.html⟩.

6. Available at ⟨http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/7A7F4AE6‐95E5‐49EB‐8E80‐07F924D347D1/17956/FAQBibliometrics.pdf⟩