Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:20:36.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scholarly Communication in Education Journals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Raf Vanderstraeten
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rise of disciplines is connected with the formation of groups or networks of specialists. It is connected with the emergence of “scientific communities,” theorized about since Thomas Kuhn and Robert Merton. But how is such a community of specialists brought together; how are common orientations among members of a scientific community upheld? In this article it is argued that scholarly journals play a key role in the modern scientific disciplines. Journals both secure the shared values of a scientific community and endorse what that community takes to be certified knowledge. Publications in scholarly journals have become the basic units of scientific communication in a discipline. Against this theoretical background, I analyze in this article the evolution of the leading scholarly journal in the field of education in the Dutch-language community, Paedagogische Studiën (Studies in Education). The analyses illuminate a number of historical evolutions in this journal in the period 1920–75: the increase in coauthorship and the concomitant standardization of publication formats; the changing role of the editorial board, especially in its function of gatekeeper of scientific communication; and the increase and the shifting “global” nature of cited work in the journal. Because of the close relationship between journal and discipline, this analysis highlights basic characteristics of the patterns of communication and the constitution of disciplinary identity in Dutch-language educational science.

Type
Articles
Information
Social Science History , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 109 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaltojärvi, I., Arminen, I., Auranen, O. and Pasanen, H.-M. (2008) “Scientific productivity, Web visibility, and citation patterns in sixteen Nordic sociology departments.” Acta Sociologica 51: 5–22.Google Scholar
Abbott, A. (1999) Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, A., et al. (2009) “Journals under threat: A joint response from history of science, technology, and medicine editors.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 45: 2–4.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (1999) Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baumert, J.and Roeder, P. M. (1990) “Forschungsproduktivität und ihre institutionellen Bedingungen—alltag erziehungswissenschaftlicher Forschung.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 36: 73–97.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. and Rogers, P. (2008) “Writing and secular knowledge within modern European institutions,” in Bazerman, C. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum: 157–75Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., ed. (1956–64) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. 2 vols. New York: Longman and McKay.Google Scholar
Bornmann, L. (2007) “Peer-Review in der Wissenschaft—eine Analyse des Begutachtungsverfahrens aus der Sicht wissenschaftssoziologischer Theorien.” Swiss Journal of Sociology 33: 327–47.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (2001) Science de la science et réflexivité: Cours du Colleège de France, 2000–2001. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2001) “The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52: 187–200.Google Scholar
Camic, C. (1992) “Reputation and predecessor selection.” American Sociological Review 57: 421–45.Google Scholar
Coser, L. A. (1965) Men of Ideas: A Sociologist’s View. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, E., Shinn, T. and Sörlin, S. (1993) Denationalizing Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Cronin, B. (1984) The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
De Block, A. (1966) “Opvoeding, vorming en onderwijs.” Paedagogische Studiën 43: 120–28.Google Scholar
De Solla Price, D. J. (1963) Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deen, N. and Velema, E. (1974) “Verantwoording.” Pedagogische Studiën 51: 47–48.Google Scholar
Deheu, T. (1995) Changing the Rules: Psychology in the Netherlands, 1900–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Depaepe, M. and Bakker, N. (1998) “Een gemeenschappelijke studeerkamer: 75 jaar Pedagogische Studiën.” Pedagogische Studiën 75: 9–44.Google Scholar
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O. Schofer, E. (2003) Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, E. (1979) The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, D. (1989) “A behavioural approach to information retrieval system design.” Journal of Documentation 45: 171–212.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1984) Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1995) “Qu’estce qu’un auteur?” in Dits et écrits, vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard: 789–821.Google Scholar
Frickel, S. and Gross, N. (2005). “A general theory of intellectual/scientific movements.” American Sociological Review 70: 204–32.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1985) The Awards of Science and Other Essays. Philadelphia: Intercollegiate Studies Institute Press.Google Scholar
Geiger, R. L. (2004) To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gross, A. G., Harmon, J. E. and Reidy, M. (2002) Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, C. (1996) Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. (1988) “Particularités et particularismes de la sociologie aux Pays-Bas.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 14: 76–81.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J., Guilhot, N. and Jeanpierre, L. (2008) “Toward a transnational history of the social sciences.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 44: 146–60.Google Scholar
Hirschauer, S. (2004) “Peer-Review Verfahren auf dem Prüfstand.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 33: 62–83.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, R. and Schneuwly, B. (2001) Educational Science in Switzerland: Evolution and Outlooks. Bern: Cest.Google Scholar
Horn, K.-P. (2003) Erziehungswissenschaft in Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Jonker, A. E. M. (1988) “Pedagogische Studiën 1920–1970.” Pedagogische Studiën 65: 502–13.Google Scholar
Keiner, E. (1999) Erziehungswissenschaft, 1947–1990: Eine empirische und vergleichende Untersuchung zur kommunikativen Praxis einer Disziplin. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
Kronick, D. A. (1976) A History of Scientific and Technical Periodicals: The Origins and Development of the Scientific and Technical Press, 1665–1790. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lamont, M. and Molnár, V. (2002) “The study of boundaries in the social sciences;.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–95.Google Scholar
Lenoir, T. (1997) Instituting Science: The Cultural Production of Scientific Disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (1998) “Theories of citation?” Scientometrics 43: 5–25.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (2001) The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement, and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications. Leiden: DSWO.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Manten, A. A. (1980a) “The growth of European scientific journal publishing before 1850,” in Meadows, A. J. (ed.) Development of Science Publishing in Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 1–22.Google Scholar
Manten, A. A. (1980b) “Publication of scientific information is not identical with communication.” Scientometrics 2: 303–8.Google Scholar
McKie, D. (1979) “The scientific periodical from 1665 to 1798,” in Meadows, A. J. (ed.) The Scientific Journal. London: Aslib: 7–17.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Moed, H. F. (2005) Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Noordam, N. F. (1961) “Veertig jaar Paedagogische Studiën.” Paedagogische Studieën 38: 273–76.Google Scholar
Platt, J. (1998) A Brief History of the ISA, 1948–1997. Quebec: International Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Platt, J. (2003) The British Sociological Association: A Sociological History. Durham: Sociologypress.Google Scholar
Pontille, D. (2003) “Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 28: 217–43.Google Scholar
Reill, P. H. (1998) “The construction of the social sciences in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Germany,” in Heilbron, J., Magnusson, L. and Wittrock, B. (eds.) The Rise of the Social Sciences and the Formation of Modernity. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 107–40.Google Scholar
Renear, A. H. and Palmer, C. L. (2009) “Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing.” Science, no. 325: 828–32.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, D. R. (1991) Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870–1990. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Schelsky, H. (1957) Die skeptische Generation. Düsseldorf: Diederichs.Google Scholar
Smith, A. G. R. (1972) Science and Society in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Stichweh, R. (1994) Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Tenorth, H.-E. (1989) “Deutsche Erziehungswissenschaft im frühen 20. Jahrhundert: Aspekte ihrer historischsozialen Konstitution,” in Zedler, P. and König, E. (eds.) Rekonstruktionen pädagogischer Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Fallstudien, Ansätze, Perspektiven. Weinheim: Beltz: 117–40.Google Scholar
Titze, H. (1995) Wachstum und Differenzierung der deutschen Universitäten, 1830–1945. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Van der Ploeg, J. G. (1959) “Vorming in de strijdkrachten.” Paedagogische Studiën 36: 78–87.Google Scholar
Van Strien, P. (1993) Nederlandse psychologen en hun publiek. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Vanderstraeten, R. and van Hilvoorde, I. (2001) “Evolutielijnen van de wetenschappelijke pedagogiek: Disciplinegrenzen, tijdschriftpublicaties en Paedagogische Studiën.” Pedagogische Studiën 78: 36–55.Google Scholar
Weinstock, M. (1971) “Citation indexes,” in Kent, A. and Lancour, H. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. New York: Dekker: 16–40.Google Scholar
Wouters, P. F. (1999) “The citation culture.” PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zwart, H. (2001) De wetenschapper als auteur. Nijmegen: SUN.Google Scholar