The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Four Literatures of Social Science
Abstract
This chapter reviews bibliometric studies of the social sciences and humanities. SSCI bibliometrics will work reasonably well in economics and psychology, whose literatures share many characteristics with science, and less well in sociology, characterised by a typical social science literature. The premise of the chapter is that quantitative evaluation of research output faces severe methodological difficulties in fields whose literature differs in nature from scientific literature. Bibliometric evaluations are based on international journal literature indexed in the SSCI, but social scientists also publish books, write for national journals and for the non-scholarly press. These literatures form distinct, yet partially overlapping worlds, each serving a different purpose. For example, national journals communicate with a local scholarly community, and the non-scholarly press represents research in interaction with contexts of application. Each literature is more trans-disciplinary than its scientific counterpart, which itself poses methodological challenges. The nature and role of each of the literatures will be explored here, and the chapter will argue that by ignoring the three other literatures of social science bibliometric evaluation produces a distorted picture of social science fields. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The New production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4463 · Cited by 7,046
The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
Baber, Z., Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1995) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2076669 · Cited by 4,406
The New Production of Knowledge
Gibbons, M. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,405
The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science
Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(97)00013-9 · Cited by 1,281
Communication among scientists and engineers
Nelson, C. E., & Pollock, D. (1970) · Cited by 472
Hicks, D. (1999) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02457380 · Cited by 388
Self-citationNarin, F. (1994) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/bf02017219 · Cited by 350
Careers in Print: Books, Journals, and Scholarly Reputations
Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230730 · Cited by 290
A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/s0306-4573(98)00028-4 · Cited by 279
A bibliometric study on ageing and reception processes of scientific literature
Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1995) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555159502100104 · Cited by 231
Cited by
Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review
Nederhof, A. J. (2006) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2 · Cited by 786
Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature
Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001 · Cited by 733
Michael Hall, C. (2011) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.07.001 · Cited by 634
The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)
Henriksen, D. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x · Cited by 265
The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators
Delgado López‐Cózar, E., Robinson‐García, N., & Torres‐Salinas, D. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23056 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Hicks, D.
- Venue
- Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research
- Publisher
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Published
- 2006-02-20
- Pages
- 473-496
- OpenAlex
- W55473955
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 66.04
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Four Literatures of Social Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22
- The paper
- Hicks, D. (2006). The Four Literatures of Social Science. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_22
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.