Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro

IF 1.2 Q4 BUSINESS Business Systems Research Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007
Dijana Vučković, Sanja Pekovic, Stevo Popović, Jovana Janinovic
{"title":"Assessing the Appraisal of Research Quality in Social Sciences and Humanities: A Case Study of the University of Montenegro","authors":"Dijana Vučković, Sanja Pekovic, Stevo Popović, Jovana Janinovic","doi":"10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background A noteworthy attempt has recently been made to extend the same or analogous evaluation criteria traditionally employed in natural and technical sciences to social sciences and humanities domains. However, this endeavor has sparked considerable reactions among researchers, leading to robust discussions and debates. Objectives This research aims to describe the scholars’ perception of the research quality evaluation in Montenegro's social sciences and humanities. Methods/Approach Focus-group interviews in which 25 interlocutors from various fields of social sciences and humanities were used. The participants discussed the given topic in five focus group interviews and were prompted by questions that specified the topic. Results Different perceptions occur within the social sciences and humanities and are visible within individual areas. Respondents think that the current way of evaluating the results of research work in social sciences and humanities ignores the specificities of research methodologies and practices. Conclusions The respondents show a common element of perception, i.e., that the research quality evaluation in the social sciences and humanities must be multidimensional, meaning that it must include the necessary indicators adjusted to concrete research field as much as possible but also contain agreeably qualitative criteria.","PeriodicalId":43772,"journal":{"name":"Business Systems Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Systems Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2023-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background A noteworthy attempt has recently been made to extend the same or analogous evaluation criteria traditionally employed in natural and technical sciences to social sciences and humanities domains. However, this endeavor has sparked considerable reactions among researchers, leading to robust discussions and debates. Objectives This research aims to describe the scholars’ perception of the research quality evaluation in Montenegro's social sciences and humanities. Methods/Approach Focus-group interviews in which 25 interlocutors from various fields of social sciences and humanities were used. The participants discussed the given topic in five focus group interviews and were prompted by questions that specified the topic. Results Different perceptions occur within the social sciences and humanities and are visible within individual areas. Respondents think that the current way of evaluating the results of research work in social sciences and humanities ignores the specificities of research methodologies and practices. Conclusions The respondents show a common element of perception, i.e., that the research quality evaluation in the social sciences and humanities must be multidimensional, meaning that it must include the necessary indicators adjusted to concrete research field as much as possible but also contain agreeably qualitative criteria.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会科学与人文学科研究质量评估:以黑山大学为例
摘要背景最近有一个值得注意的尝试,将传统上用于自然科学和技术科学的相同或类似的评估标准扩展到社会科学和人文科学领域。然而,这一努力在研究人员中引发了相当大的反应,导致了激烈的讨论和辩论。目的本研究旨在描述学者对黑山社会科学与人文学科研究质量评价的看法。方法/方法采用焦点小组访谈,访谈对象为来自社会科学和人文科学不同领域的25位对话者。参与者在五个焦点小组访谈中讨论给定的主题,并由指定主题的问题提示。结果在社会科学和人文科学中存在不同的观念,并且在个别领域中是可见的。受访者认为,目前评估社会科学和人文科学研究工作成果的方法忽视了研究方法和实践的特殊性。调查对象普遍认为,社会科学和人文学科的研究质量评价必须是多维的,既要包含尽可能多的针对具体研究领域调整的必要指标,又要包含适宜的定性标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
0
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Disruptive Business Model Innovation and Digital Transformation An Extended RFM Model for Customer Behaviour and Demographic Analysis in Retail Industry Disruptive Business Model Innovation and Digital Transformation Does the Type of Nominal Personal Income Tax Rate Affect Its Progressivity? A Case Study from the Czech Republic Analysis of Entrepreneurial Behaviour in Incubated Technology-Based Companies
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1