Evidence through the lens of bibliometrics—the case of Finnish higher education admission reform

Joni Forsell, V. Mankki
{"title":"Evidence through the lens of bibliometrics—the case of Finnish higher education admission reform","authors":"Joni Forsell, V. Mankki","doi":"10.1080/20020317.2022.2149099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A major admissions reform was carried out in Finnish higher education at the end of the last decade. This paper focuses on three main policy papers connected to the reform and examines the use and production of evidence therein. Drawing on bibliometric research and research on educational policy, we aim to provide insight into how to utilize citation analysis when examining evidence in educational policymaking. In the three policy papers, domestic legislature was cited the most frequently, and research from higher education institutions was cited the least. Affirmational citations were the most prominent; perfunctory, assumptive, conceptual, persuasive, contrastive, and negational citations were found to a lesser extent. When cross-examined in relation to citation types, sources were mostly cited as affirmational, with the exception of research from higher education institutions, which was cited as conceptual information. We also found that the writers cited their own previously written ministry-affiliated policy brief as central information in one of the policy papers connected to the reform. Our study is in line with the earlier literature showing that certain sources, such as domestic publications, are favoured over others. It also illustrates the different citation strategies experts employ to substantiate and legitimize educational policymaking.","PeriodicalId":52346,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"75 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2022.2149099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT A major admissions reform was carried out in Finnish higher education at the end of the last decade. This paper focuses on three main policy papers connected to the reform and examines the use and production of evidence therein. Drawing on bibliometric research and research on educational policy, we aim to provide insight into how to utilize citation analysis when examining evidence in educational policymaking. In the three policy papers, domestic legislature was cited the most frequently, and research from higher education institutions was cited the least. Affirmational citations were the most prominent; perfunctory, assumptive, conceptual, persuasive, contrastive, and negational citations were found to a lesser extent. When cross-examined in relation to citation types, sources were mostly cited as affirmational, with the exception of research from higher education institutions, which was cited as conceptual information. We also found that the writers cited their own previously written ministry-affiliated policy brief as central information in one of the policy papers connected to the reform. Our study is in line with the earlier literature showing that certain sources, such as domestic publications, are favoured over others. It also illustrates the different citation strategies experts employ to substantiate and legitimize educational policymaking.
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
文献计量学视角下的证据——以芬兰高等教育招生改革为例
在过去的十年中,芬兰高等教育进行了一次重大的招生改革。本文重点介绍了与改革有关的三个主要政策文件,并考察了其中证据的使用和制作。借鉴文献计量学研究和教育政策研究,我们的目标是提供如何在教育政策制定中使用引文分析来检验证据的见解。在这三份政策文件中,国内立法机构被引用的次数最多,而高等教育机构的研究被引用的次数最少。肯定的引用是最突出的;敷衍引用、假设引用、概念性引用、说服性引用、对比引用和否定引用的比例较低。当对引用类型进行交叉询问时,除了高等教育机构的研究被引用为概念性信息外,来源大多被引用为肯定性的。我们还发现,在一份与改革相关的政策文件中,作者引用了他们自己之前写的隶属于部委的政策简报作为核心信息。我们的研究与早期文献一致,表明某些来源,如国内出版物,比其他来源更受青睐。它还说明了不同的引用策略专家采用,以证实和合法化的教育政策制定。
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
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
School autonomy with accountability as a cross-national policy model: diverse adoptions, practices and impacts. Pathways to higher education for vocationally qualified students. The case of Norway Education that lacks access to deaf experience: odd situations in Sweden Pathways to inclusive higher education: learnings from India’s National Education Policy 2020 Inclusion policies for social minorities in higher education: dialogue between the Brazilian and Nordic contexts
×
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