Abstract
Controversies about research evaluation in SSH do not depend mainly on technical issues, such as coverage and reliability of indicators, but on deeper epistemic reasons. This chapter argues that entering into the way in which scientific communities produce valid knowledge is a promising avenue to make research evaluation legitimate and productive. The chapters, expanding a work initiated in a book, combine two levels of analysis: a historical reconstruction of the academic institutionalisation of disciplines, and a discussion of epistemic issues, such as the explanatory orientation, the methodology, and the overall position with respect to two epistemological challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
That is why I find most arguments about the possibility of manipulation of bibliometric information, such as the Impact factor, rather pointless. Science itself is manipulable. There are many examples of fake discoveries or misbehaviour of scientists. The truly interesting question is not why these things happen, but why they happen so infrequently and how it happens that they are almost invariably discovered and punished.
References
Abbott, A. (2001). The chaos of disciplines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Abelhauser, A., Gori, R., & Sauret, M. J. (2011). La folie èvaluation. Paris: Mille et une nuits.
Abrams, M. H. (1997). The transformation of English Studies: 1930–1995. In T. Bender & C. E. Schorske (Eds.), American academic culture in transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Amit, V. (2000). The university as panopticon. Moral claims and attacks on academic freedom. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
Anderson, M. J. (1988). The American census. A social history. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Anderson, M. J., & Fienberg, S. E. (1999). Who counts? The politics of census-taking in contemporary America. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Appleby, J., Hunt, L., & Jacob, M. (1994). Telling the truth about history. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Apter, D. E. (2001). Structure, contingency, and choice: A comparison of trends and tendencies in political science. In J. W. Scott & D. Keates (Eds.), Schools of thought. Twenty-five years of interpretive social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bagnoli, C. (2006). Deliberare, confrontare, misurare. Ragion Pratica, 26, 65–80.
Baldi, S. (1998). Normative versus social constructivist processes in the allocation of citations: A network-analytic model. American Sociological Review, 63, 829–846.
Baldick, C. (1983). The social mission of English criticism, 1848–1932. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Balinski, M., & Laraki, R. (2010). Majority judgment. Measuring, ranking, and electing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Barnard, A. (2000). History and theory in anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, B., & Edge, D. (Eds.). (1982). Science in context. Readings in the sociology of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge. A sociological analysis. Athlone: Chicago University Press.
Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R., & Silverman, S. (2005). One discipline, four ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bastow, S., Dunleavy, P., & Tinkler, J. (2014). The impact of the social sciences. How academics and their research make a difference. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bate, J. (Ed.). (2011). The public value of humanities. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Belfiore, E., & Upchurch, A. (2013). Humanities in the twenty-first century. Beyond utility and markets. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bell, D. (1982). The social sciences since the Second World War. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2011). Philosophy of social science. The philosophical foundations of social thought (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bernstein, R. J. (1976). The restructuring of social and political theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism. Science, hermeneutics and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bérubé, M., & Ruth, J. (2015). The humanities, higher education, and academic freedom. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blaug, M. (1992). The methodology of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, H. (1994). The Western canon. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.. (Italian translation Milan, Rizzoli, 1996).
Bod, R. (2013). A new history of humanities. The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boghossian, P. (2006). Fear of knowledge. Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2015). La valutazione possibile. Teoria e pratica nel mondo della ricerca. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brewer, J. D. (2013). The public value of the social sciences. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Brooks, T. A. (1985). Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 36(4), 223–229.
Brooks, T. A. (1986). Evidence of complex citer motivations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 34–36.
Brooks, P. (Ed.). (2014). The humanities and public life. New York: Fordham University Press.
Bryant, C. A. G. (1985). Positivism in social theory and research. Macmillan: Houndmills.
Bulmer, M., Bales, K., & Kish Sklar, K. (Eds.). (1991). The social survey in historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Camic, C., Gross, N., & Lamont, M. (2011). Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. (reprint London, Penguin Books, 1990).
Chang, R. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chang, R. (2002). Making comparisons count. New York: Routledge.
Chartier, R. (2009). Au bord de la falaise. L’historie entre certitudes et inquiétude. Paris: Albin Michel. (first edition, 1998).
Citton, Y. (2010). L’avenir des Humanités. Èconomie de la connaissance ou cultures de l’interpretation? Paris: La Découverte.
Clifford, J. (2005). Rearticulating anthropology. In D. A. Segal & S. J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Unwrapping the sacred bundle: Reflections on the disciplining of anthropology. Durham: Duke University Press.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Collins, H. M. (1975). The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiment in physics. Sociology, 9, 205–224.
Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H. M. (1999). Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science, 29, 163–197.
Court, F. E. (1992). Institutionalizing English literature. The culture and politics of literary study, 1750–1900. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process. The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Oxford: Taylor Graham.
Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science. Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press.
Crosby, A. W. (1997). The measure of reality. Quantification and Western society, 1250–1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
D’Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darnell, R. (2001). Invisible genealogies. A history of Americanist anthropology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Darnell, R. (2008). North American traditions in anthropology: The historiographic baseline. In H. Kuklick (Ed.), A new history of anthropology (pp. 35–51). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.
Dean, M. (1990). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Delanty, G. (2005). Social science (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Della Porta, D., & Keating, M. (Eds.). (2008). Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences. A pluralist perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Desrosières, A. (1993). La politique des grands nombres. Historie de la raison statistique. Paris: La Découverte.
Desrosières, A. (2008a). Pour une sociologie historique de la quantification. L’argument statistique I. Paris: Presses de l’École des Mines.
Desrosières, A. (2008b). Gouverner par les nombres. L’argument statistique II. Paris: Presses de l’École des Mines.
Desrosières, A. (2014). Prouver et gouverner. Une analyse politique des statistiques publiques. Paris: La Découverte.
Donoghue, F. (2008). The last professors. The corporate university and the fate of the humanities. New York: Fordham University Press.
Dudley Duncan, O. (1984). Notes on social measurement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eagleton, T. (2015). The slow death of the university, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 August, in http://chronicle.com/article/The-Slow-Death-of-the/228991/. Last access 19 Aug 2015.
Easton, D., Gunnell, J. G., & Graziano, L. (1990). The development of political science. A comparative survey. London: Routledge.
Eley, G. (1996). Is all the world a text? From social history to the history of society two decades later. In T. H. McDonald (Ed.), The historic turn in the human sciences. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Eriksen, T. H., & Nielsen, F. S. (2001). A history of anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
Evans, R. J. (1997). In defense of history. London: Granta Books.
Evans, R. J. (2001). Introduction. In E. H. Carr (Ed.), What is history? Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Farge, A. (1989). Le goût de l’archive. Paris: Èditions de Seuil.
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fish, S. (1989). Doing what comes naturally. Change, rhetoric and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fish, S. (1995). Professional correctness. Literary studies and political change. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Editons Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1978a). La «gouvernamentalitè» : Cours du Collège de France, Annéè 1977–1978 : Securitè, territoire et population, 4e leçon, 1er février 1978. In M. Foucault, Dits et écrits II. 1976–1988. Paris, Gallimard, 2001, pp. 635–657.
Foucault, M. (1978b). Introduction by Michel Foucault. In G. Canguilhem, On the normal and the pathological. Boston, D. Reidel, p. ix–xx. In M. Foucault, Dits et écrits II. 1976–1988. Paris, Gallimard, 2001, pp. 429–442.
Fowler, D. D. (1975). Notes on inquiries in anthropology: A bibliographic essay. In H. H. Thoresen (Ed.), Toward a science of man. Essays in the history of anthropology. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Frickel, S., & Moore, K. (Eds.). (2006). The new political sociology of science. Institutions, networks, and power. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Friedman, M. (1952). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gallagher, C. (1997). The history of literary criticism. In T. Bender & C. E. Schorske (Eds.), American academic culture in transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gallay, A., & Gardin, J. C. (2009). Les méthodes logicistes en archéologie. Perspectives et limites. In B. Walliser (Ed.), La cumulativité du savoir en sciences sociales. Paris: Èditions de l’École des Hautes Ètudes en Sciences Sociales.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. Hammersmith: Fontana Press.
Gellner, E. (1985). Relativism and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gellner, E. (1992). Postmodernism, reason and religion. London: Routledge.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ginzburg, C. (1986). Miti emblemi spie. Morfologia e storia. Turin: Einaudi.
Goertz, G. (2006). Social science concepts. A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures. Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gori, R. (2011). La dignité de penser. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
Gori, R. (2013). La societè des imposteurs. Paris: Les Liens qui Libèrent.
Graff, G. (1987). Professing literature. An institutional history. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grafton, A. (1991). Defenders of the text. In The traditions of scholarship in an age of science, 1450–1800. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grafton, A. (1999). The footnote. A curious history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (ed. or. Paris, Èditions de Seuil, 1997).
Grafton, A. (2009). Worlds made by words. In Scholarship and community in the Modern West. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guala, F. (2006). Filosofia dell’economia. Modelli, causalità, previsione. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Guillory, J. (1993). Cultural capital. The problem of literary canon formation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gumbrecht, H. U. (2003). The powers of philology. Dynamics of textual scholarship. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Gunnell, J. G. (1990). The historiography of American political science. In D. Easton, J. G. Gunnell, & L. Graziano (Eds.), The development of political science. London: Routledge.
Halbwachs, M. (1925). Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Albin Michel. (new edition, 1994).
Halbwachs, M. (1950). La mémoire collective. Paris: Albin Michel. (new edition, 1997).
von Hallberg, R. (1983). Canons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Haskell, T. L. (2000). The emergence of professional social science. The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth-Century crisis of authority. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (ed. or. University of Illinois Press, 1977).
Hausman, D. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrnstein-Smith, H. (1988). Contingencies of value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America. A historical survey. San Fiego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hollinger, D. A. (1997). The disciplines and the identity debates, 1970–1995. In T. Bender & C. E. Schorske (Eds.), American academic culture in transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hollinger, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). The humanities and the dynamics of inclusion since World War II. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities. Individuality and community in academic discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iggers, G. G. (1997). Historiography in the twentieth century. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Iser, W. (2012). L’appel du texte. Paris: Èditions Allia.
Jauss, H. R. (1978). Pour une esthétique de la réception. Paris: Èditions Gallimard.
Jenkins, K. (2003). Re-thinking history. London: Routledge. (ed. or. 1991).
Kernan, A. (Ed.). (1997). What’s happened to the humanities? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the science makes knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kuklick, H. (Ed.). (2008). A new history of anthropology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Lamont, M. (1987). How to become a dominant French philosopher: The case of Jacques Derrida. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3), 584–622.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). La vie de laboratoire. La production des faits scientifiques. Paris: La Découverte.
Lenoir, T. (1997). Instituting science. The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences. Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count. The improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1997). Political science in the 1940s and 1950s. In T. Bender & C. E. Schorske (Eds.), American academic culture in transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lindsay, D. (1978). The scientific publication system in social science. A study of the operation of leading professional journals in Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
List, C., & Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency. The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mansfield, E. (2002). Art history and its institutions. Foundations of a discipline. London: Routledge.
McMurtry, J. (1985). English language, English literature. The creation of an academic discipline. Hamden: Archon Books.
Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. N. (1987). The rhetoric of history. In J. S. Nelson, A. Megill, & D. N. McCloskey (Eds.), The rhetoric of the human sciences. Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Momigliano, A. (1984). The rhetoric of history and the history of rhetoric: On Hayden White’s Tropes. In Settimo contributo alla storia degli studi classici del mondo antico (pp. 49–59). Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Moses, J. W., & Knutsen, T. L. (2007). Ways of knowing. Competing methodologies in social and political research. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Mulkay, M. (1991). Sociology of science. A sociological pilgrimage. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Nelson, J. S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. N. (Eds.). (1987). The rhetoric of the human sciences. Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Novick, P. (1988). That noble dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American historical profession. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Ochsner, M., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H. D. (Eds.). (2016). Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. New York: Springer.
Parrinder, P. (1991). Authors and authority. English and American criticism, 1750–1990. Houndmills: Macmillan.
Patriarca, S. (1996). Numbers and nationhood. Writing statistics in nineteenth-century Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Platt, J. (1996). A history of sociological research methods in America, 1920–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Potin, Y. (2013). L’historien en “ses” archives. In C. Granger (Ed.), À quoi pensent les historiens? Faire de l’historie au XXI e siècle. Paris: Èditions Autrement.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Preziosi, D. (1989). Rethinking art history. Meditations on a coy science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Renfrew, C., & Bahn, P. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, methods and practice (5th ed.). London: Thames and Hudson.
Renker, E. (2007). The origins of American literature studies. An institutional history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, P. M. (1992). Post-modernism and the social sciences. Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ross, D. (1991). The origins of American social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and postmodernism. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science. A realist approach (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power. Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scholes, R. (1998). The rise and fall of English. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. W., & Keates, D. (Eds.). (2001). Schools of thought. Twenty-five years of interpretive social science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shumway, D. R. (1994). Creating American civilization. A genealogy of American literature as an academic discipline. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Small, H. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, R. M. (1997). Still blowing in the wind: The American quest for a democratic, scientific political science. In T. Bender & C. E. Schorske (Eds.), American academic culture in transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steele, D., & Guala, F. (2011). The philosophy of social science reader. London: Routledge.
Steinmetz, G. (Ed.). (2005). The politics of method in the human sciences. Positivism and its epistemological others. Durham: Duke University Press.
Stigler, S. M. (1999). Statistics on the table. In The history of statistical concepts and methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Strathern, M. (Ed.). (2000). Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.
Szenberg, M., & Ramrattan, L. (2014). Secrets of economics editors. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science. A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Thoresen, T. H. H. (Ed.). (1975). Toward a science of man. Essays in the history of anthropology. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Tosh, J. (2010). The pursuit of history. Aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history (5th ed.). London: Longman.
Turner, J. (2014). Philology. The forgotten origins of the modern humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walliser, B. (2009a). Les trois sources de la cumulativité en économie. In B. Walliser (Ed.), La cumulativité du savoir en sciences sociales. Paris: Èditions de l’École des Hautes Ètudes en Sciences Sociales.
Walliser, B. (Ed.). (2009b). La cumulativité du savoir en sciences sociales. Paris: Èditions de l’Ècole des hautes études en sciences sociales.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory. The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (1978). Tropics of discourse. Essays in cultural criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
White, H. (1987). The content of the form. Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Windschuttle, K. (1996). The killing of history. How literary critics and social theorists are murdering our past. New York: Encounter Books.
Yearley, S. (2005). Making sense of science. Understanding the social studies of science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ziman, J. (1978). Reliable knowledge. An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bonaccorsi, A. (2018). Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)