Prolegomena for any Future Narrative Literaturemetrics
Copyright (c) 2024 Julian David Romero Torres
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This paper introduces the concept of narrative literaturemetrics, a novel mixedmethods approach that applies the quantitative metrics traditionally used in bibliometrics to the field of literature. Utilising an extended version of Bourdieu’s field theory, this study draws parallels between academia and literature, emphasising the applicability of concepts such as capital, field, and agents to literary analysis. Despite the evident similarities, there has been a surprising lack of field-theoretical studies employing bibliometric methodologies within literary studies. This paper addresses that gap by outlining the theoretical foundations and methodological considerations of narrative literaturemetrics. It discusses adapting bibliometric indicators to literary analysis and highlights the distinctions necessary to respect the unique norms governing literature and academia. Furthermore, the paper explores the emerging qualitative turn in bibliometrics, particularly the development of narrative bibliometrics, and its relevance to the proposed approach. By detailing the conceptual framework and potential applications of narrative literaturemetrics, this study aims to establish a comprehensive model for future empirical research in literary studies.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
Aguillo, I. F. (2022). Bibliometría sofisticada [Sophisticated Bibliometrics]. Anuario ThinkEPI, 16. Online: https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2022.e16e28
Assimakis, N. & Adam, M. (2010). A New Author’s Productivity Index: P-index. Scientometrics, 85(2), 415–427. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0255-z
Baird, L. M. & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do Citations Matter? Journal of Information Science, 20(1), 2–15. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159402000102
Bajnok, A., Kriskó, E., Tari, A. & Demeter, M. (2022). Habitus Formation and Perceived Academic Norms of Hungarian Communication Scholars. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 10(1), 59–79.
Bauder, H., Hannah, C. A. & Lujan, O. (2017). International Experience in the Academic Field: Knowledge Production, Symbolic Capital, and Mobility Fetishism. Population, Space and Place, 23(6), 1–13. Online: https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2040
Bihari, A., Tripathi, S. & Deepak, A. (2023). A Review on H-index and Its Alternative Indices. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 624–665. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478
Blasco, O., Demeter, M. & Goyanes, M. (2024). A Contribution-Based Indicator of Research Productivity: Theoretical Definition and Empirical Testing in the Field of Communication. Online Information Review, 48(4), 823–840. Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2022-0634
Bordignon, F., Chaignon, L. & Egret, E. (2023). Promoting Narrative CVs to Improve Research Evaluation? A Review of Opinion Pieces and Experiments. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 313–320. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad013
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. P. Collier (trans.). Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1996b). The State 1. Elite Schools in the Field of Power. L. C. Clough (trans.). Polity.
Bourdieu, P. (1999a). The Weight of the World. Social Suffering in Contemporary Society. P. Parkhurst
Ferguson, S. Emanuel, J. Johnson, Sh. T. Waryn (trans.). Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of Science and Reflexivity. R. Nice (trans.). Polity.
Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What Do We Know about the h Index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1381–1385. Online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20609
Bornmann, L. & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth Rates of Modern Science: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on the Number of Publications and Cited References. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. Online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
Burris, V. (2004). The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 239–264. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900205
Callaham, M., Wears, R. L. & Weber, E. (2002). Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated with Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals. Jama, 287(21), 2847–2850. Online: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2847
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Crossley, N. (2004). On Systematically Distorted Communication: Bourdieu and the Socio-Analysis of Publics. The Sociological Review, 52(Suppl. 1), 88–112. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00475.x
Deardorff, D. K. & van Gaalen, A. (2023). Assessing Internationalization Outcomes. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, B. Leask & H. Charles (Eds.), The Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 147–164). Routledge.
Deer, C. (2014). Doxa. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu. Key Concepts. Routledge.
Demeter, M. (2018). Theorizing International Inequalities in Communication and Media Studies. A Field Theory Approach. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 6(2), 92–110.
Demeter, M. (2019). The World-Systemic Dynamics of Knowledge Production: The Distribution of Transnational Academic Capital in the Social Sciences. Journal of World-Systems Research, 25(1), 111–144. Online: https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2019.887
Demeter, M. (2020). Academic Knowledge Production and the Global South. Questioning Inequality and Under-representation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52701-3
Fang, Z., Costas, R., Tian, W., Wang, X. & Wouters, P. (2021). How is Science Clicked on Twitter? Click Metrics for Bitly Short Links to Scientific Publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72, 918–932. Online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24458
Ferrare, J. J. & Apple, M. W. (2015). Field Theory and Educational Practice: Bourdieu and the Pedagogic Qualities of Local Field Positions in Educational Contexts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 43–59. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.988682
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. R. Hurley. (trans.). Pantheon.
Goyanes, M. & Demeter, M. (2021). Dr. Excellent: The Systemic and Personal Conditions for Being an Academic Star in Communication Studies. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 9(2), 65–80. Online: https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.75672.64
Goyanes, M., Demeter, M., Grane, A., Toth, T. & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2023). Research Patterns in Communication (2009–2019): Testing Female Representation and Productivity Differences, within the Most Cited Authors and the Field. Scientometrics, 128(1), 137–156. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04575-4
Glänzel, W. & Thijs, B. (2004). The Influence of Author Self-Citations on Bibliometric Macro Indicators. Scientometrics, 59(3), 281–310. Online: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018535.99885.e9
Grenfell, M. (2014). Interest. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu. Key Concepts. Routledge.
Hadas, M. (2021). Outlines of a Theory of Plural Habitus: Bourdieu Revisited. Routledge.
Hagen, N. T. (2010). Harmonic Publication and Citation Counting: Sharing Authorship Credit Equitably – not Equally, Geometrically or Arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84(3), 785–793. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4
Havas, Á. & Fáber, Á. (2020). A heteronóm akadémia felemelkedése az EU peremvidékein [The Rise of the Heteronomous Academy on the EU’s Periphery]. Replika, (115), 131–140.
He, Q., Chen, B., Pei, J., Qiu, B., Mitra, P. & Giles, L. (2009). Detecting Topic Evolution in Scientific Literature: How can Citations Help? Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 957–966. Online: https://doi.org/10.1145/1645953.1646076
Heilbron, J., Sora, G. & Boncourt, T. (2018). The Social and Human Sciences in Global Power Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hilgers, M. & Mangez, E. (2015). Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Fields. Concepts and Applications. Routledge.
Horányi, Ö. ed. (2007). A kommunikáció mint participáció [Communication as Participation]. Typotex.
Hunter, L. (2004). Bourdieu and the Social Space of the PE Class: Reproduction of Doxa through Practice. Sport, Education and Society, 9(2), 175–192.
Johnes, J. (2018). University Rankings: What Do They Really Show? Scientometrics, 115(1), 585–606. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2666-1
Kaur, J., Hoang, D. T., Sun, X., Possamai, L., JafariAsbagh, M., Patil, S. & Menczer, F. (2012). Scholarometer: A Social Framework for Analyzing Impact across Disciplines. PLoS ONE, 7(9). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043235
Kuhn, T. S. (1997). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kwiek, M. (2012). Knowledge Production in European Universities: States, Markets, and Academic Entrepreneurialism. Peter Lang.
Larivière, V. & Costas, R. (2016). How Many is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact. PLOS ONE, 11(9). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162709
Labinger, J. A. (2023). Connecting Literature and Science. Routledge. Online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003197188
Lauf, E. (2005). National Diversity of Major International Journals in the Field of Communication. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 19–151. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02663.x
Leung, M. W. H. (2013). ‘Read Ten Thousand Books, Walk Ten Thousand Miles’: Geographical Mobility and Capital Accumulation among Chinese Scholars. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(2), 311–324. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00526.x
Liu, F., Hu, G., Tang, L. & Liu, W. (2018). The Penalty of Containing More non-English Articles. Scientometrics, 114(1), 359–366. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2577-6
Miranda, R. & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2019). Comparison of the Share of Documents and Citations from
Different Quartile Journals in 25 Research Areas. Scientometrics, 121(1), 479–501. Online: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11192-019-03210-z
Muñoz-García, A. L. (2019). Intellectual Endogamy in the University: The Neoliberal Regulation of Academic
Work. Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 24–43. Online: https://doi.org/10.3167/latiss.2019.120203
Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G. & van Raan, A. F. J. (1985). The Use of Bibliometric Data for
the Measurement of University Research Performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149. Online: https://
doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5
Newman, M. E. (2001). The Structure of Scientific Collaboration Networks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409. Online: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404
Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to Academic Writing. Pearson/Longman.
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K. & Fortunato, S. (2012). World Citation and Collaboration Networks: Uncovering the Role of Geography in Science. Scientific Reports, 2(1), 902. Online: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00902
Parchomovsky, G. (2000). Publish or Perish. Michigan Law Review, 98(4), 926–952.
Pérez Esparrells, C., Bautista-Puig, N. & Orduña-Malea, E. (2022). La evaluación pública de la investigación científica en el contexto internacional: Posibilidades y límites [Public Evaluation of Scientific Research in the International Context: Possibilities and Limits]. Informe I [Report]. Online: https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/705530
Pietrucha, J. (2018). Country-Specific Determinants of World University Rankings. Scientometrics, 114, 1129–1139. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2634-1
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A Manifesto. Altmetrics. Online: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Rajkó, A., Herendy, C., Goyanes, M. & Demeter, M. (2023). The Matilda Effect in Communication Research: The Effects of Gender and Geography on Usage and Citations across 11 Countries. Communication Research, 0(0). Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221124389
Recke, R. (2011). Converging Principles of Norm, Rule, and Practice: Tracing Normativity beyond Semantics
in Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice. Res Cogitans, 2, 167–192.
Rothenberger, L. T., Auer, C. & Pratt, C. B. (2017). Theoretical Approaches to Normativity in Communication
Research. Communication Theory, 27(2), 176–201.
Rustin, M. (2016). The Neoliberal University and Its Alternatives. Soundings, 63(63), 147–176. Online: https://doi.org/10.3898/136266216819377057
Sapiro, G. (2003). The Literary Field between the State and the Market. Poetics, 31(5–6), 441–464. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2003.09.001
Sapiro, G. (2020). The Transnational Literary Field between (Inter)-nationalism and Cosmopolitanism. Journal of World Literature, 5(4), 481–504. Online: https://doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00504002
Sapiro, G., Santoro, M. & Baert, P. eds. (2020). Ideas on the Move in the Social Sciences and Humanities. The International Circulation of Paradigms and Theorists. Socio-Historical Studies of the Social and Human Sciences. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Savage, J. D. (2000). Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel. Cambridge University Press.
Sedighi, M. (2020). Evaluating the Impact of Research Using the Altmetrics Approach (Case Study: The Field of Scientometrics). Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 69(4–5), 241–252. Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2019-0013
Schmitt, N. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection. Oxford University Press.
SciVal (2021). SciVal Usage and Patent Metrics Guidebook. Elsevier. Online: https://www.research.psu.edu/sites/default/files/SciVal%20User%20Guide.pdf
Stephen, T. D. (2011). A Methodology for Calculating Prestige Ranks of Academic Journals in Communication: A More Inclusive Alternative to Citation Metrics. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 30(2), 63–71. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.565404
Sugiharto, S. (2021). De-Westernizing Hegemonic Knowledge in Global Academic Publishing: Toward a Politics of Locality. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 16(4), 321–333. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2021.2017442
Tahamtan, I., Safipour Afshar, A. & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors Affecting Number of Citations: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature. Scientometrics, 107, 1195–1225. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1889-2
Thatcher, J., Ingram, N., Burke, C. & Abrahams, J. (2016). Bourdieu: The Next Generation. The Development of Bourdieu’s Intellectual Heritage in Contemporary UK Sociology. Routledge.
Tomlinson, G. & Freeman, S. (2018). Who Really Selected you? Insights into Faculty Selection Processes in Top-Ranked Higher Education Graduate Programmes. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(6), 855–867. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1323192
Torres-Salinas, D., Arroyo-Machado, W. & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2023). Bibliometric Denialism. Scientometrics, 128, 5357–5359. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04787-2
Torres-Salinas, D., Orduña-Malea, E., Delgado-Vázquez, A. & Arroyo-Machado, W. (2024). Fundamentos de Bibliometría Narrativa [Fundamentals of Narrative Bibliometrics] (v.1). Zenodo. Online: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10512837
Tóth, T., Demeter, M., Csuhai, S. & Major, Z. B. (2024). When Career-Boosting is on the Line: Equity and Inequality in Grant Evaluation, Productivity, and the Educational Backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellows in Social Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Informetrics, 18(2). Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101516
Wacquant, L. (2018). Bourdieu Comes to Town: Pertinence, Principles, Applications. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(1), 90–105. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12535
Wiedemann, T. & Meyen, M. (2016). Internationalization through Americanization: The Expansion of the International Communication Association’s Leadership to the World. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1489–1509.