The objective of this chapter is to address the following question: What is the value of the scientific networking, training, and documentation activities in the new academic scenario dominated by the bibliometric assessment culture and by the impact of the technology to the science production and sharing (data-driven science, big data, open data, open access, etc.). In order to discuss the “impact of the impact” of the social representations theory in the bibliometric culture era, the authors present a selection of results on the dissemination of the theory across the continents based on data and meta-data concerning authors' countries and institutional affiliations, and publications related to the various bibliometric indexes (Impact Factor and SJR) as derived from the two largest bibliometric databases: ISI-Web of Science Thomson and Reuters and Scopus-Elsevier.
TopIntroduction
The Social Representations Theory was founded by Serge Moscovici in 1961, and after more than 50 years, the study of social representations, originally specifically European, is currently a multilingual, worldwide discipline with a substantial body of literature, involving leading scholars from social psychology and other social sciences (de Rosa, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2016b; Sammut, Andreouli, Gaskell, & Valsiner, 2015; Lo Monaco, Delouvée, & Rateaux, 2016). The field of Social Representations represents a unifying meta-theoretical perspective on the social construction of knowledge and its relation to socially situated practices. It has important applications for the public and private sectors, acting as a bridge among disciplines including psychology, social psychology, sociology, cultural studies with pragmatic approach to language, semiotics, socio-history, anthropology, and communication studies (also including multidisciplinary approaches from computer sciences and new technologies) with important implications for institutional and organizational contexts, culture and health practices, inter-group relations, ideology and politics, economics, the environment, etc. Interested in how scientific knowledge is transformed by lay people and the media into common sense, it is also a supra-disciplinary field because it has activated a conversation among social, human and natural scientists in a wide range of internationally recognised research programmes. These concern public understanding of the sciences and discoveries in various fields, such as medicine, environmental studies, biology, informatics, economy, political science, etc., and the social representations of complex new multidisciplinary topics like biogenetic foods, medical innovation, globalisation and climate change, forms of interaction through new media, the risk society, immigration, minority groups, racism and multiculturalism, human rights, European integration and enlargement, etc. Consequently, this field is open to trans-disciplinary and multi-methodological research approaches (experimental and field work). The “objects” studied have a strong societal impact and important practical applications “within” and “for” society in the political, economic and social spheres.
The diffusion of the theory of social representations have been an object of analysis in the bibliometric domain in the light of the critical debate, which still animates the community of scientists, stimulating meta-reflexive discussion and view exchanges among the members of our scientific community on the preferable publishing options and collaborative strategies in the current editorial and academic scenario (de Rosa, 2015a).
The objective of this chapter is to discuss the “impact of the impact” of the social representations theory in the bibliometric culture era, even beyond the journal’s impact. At this purpose we will present both:
- •
A selection of results on the dissemination of the theory across the continents based on data and meta-data concerning authors’ countries and institutional affiliations, comparing articles published in “not indexed” and “indexed” journals as derived from the two largest bibliometric databases (Isi-web of Science Thomson and Reuters and Scopus-Elsevier);
- •
And the geo-mapping of the wider scientific production in Social Representations.
TopBackground
Background question concerns what is the value of the scientific networking, training and documentation activities in the new academic scenario dominated by the bibliometric assessment culture and by the impact of the technology to the science production and sharing (data-driven science, big data, open data, open access, etc.).
The spirit that animates our interest in considering the “impact of the impact” is coherent with the main assumptions of the “impact beyond the impact factor” (Zupanc, 2014), and with the conclusions/recommendations of final assessment report of the Higher Education Founding Council for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (HEFCE) (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/Year/2015/metrictide/Title,104463,en.html)