In addition to discipline-aligned differences in communication practices, hypotheses as to the influence of cultural factors on communication practices were formed. Considered next are the hypotheses about the nature of the research, field interdependence, and dependence between researchers.
7.2.1 The nature of the research
In the survey, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of theoretical, empirical, development/engineering, and specialist work / consulting in their activities. The main type of research in every discipline was empirical research.
However, relative to other disciplines, theoretical research was most common in multidisciplinary biosciences and the humanities. Development/engineering was more common in the technical sciences than in other fields. Specialist work / consulting was seen most commonly in the humanities and natural sciences.
H5: Those conducting mainly theoretical or empirical research communicate primarily in academic forums.
The hypothesis is confirmed. Those conducting mainly empirical or theoretical research did their publishing more in academic article orientation than did those engaged in mainly specialist work / consulting or development/engineering. Also, those conducting mainly theoretical research published most at conferences. Thus,
it becomes clear that the nature of the research affects publishing practices. Results from empirical or theoretical studies can be published in academic forums, while the results of projects described as development/engineering or specialist work / consulting do not necessarily lead to such knowledge as could be published in academic forums. Research described as specialist work / consulting or development/engineering might also be associated with confidentiality agreements that preclude publishing of the results.
As for reading practices, those conducting mainly empirical or theoretical research read more academic literature than do those who perform mainly specialist/consulting or development and engineering work. Researchers conducting development / engineering or specialist work / consulting do not necessarily have to include literature reviews in their publications. Also, basic research may be many years ahead of or, on the other hand, behind practical developments. Therefore, academic reading is more passive in this context than for those conducting theoretical or empirical research.
H6: Those performing mainly specialist work consulting or development/engineering communicate actively in professional forums.
This hypothesis is confirmed. Those doing mainly specialist work / consulting published most in professional and industrial publishing orientations. The nature of the knowledge produced in projects described as specialist work / consulting is suitable for publishing in professional forums. Professional audiences may also be interested in the results produced in such projects. In some cases, results may not be published at all, with the findings described only in confidential research reports. Also, those conducting mainly development/engineering work published actively via conferences. This finding is related to the fact that development/engineering was the most common type of research in the technical sciences, where the tradition of publishing via conferences is strong.
Also, those engaged mainly in specialist work / consulting or development/engineering read more professional literature than did those conducting mainly empirical or theoretical research. Interviewees working with specialist work / consulting or development/engineering also emphasised the
importance of following what is happening in the ‘real world’ – for example, in industry – if one is to be able to collaborate with business actors.
7.2.2 Dependence on other fields
Dependence on other fields was measured by asking to what extent researchers use literature from their own and other scientific fields. In general, researchers in hard sciences such as biological and environmental sciences, health-care sciences, and the natural sciences, rely more on information produced in their own field. In the technical sciences, multidisciplinary biosciences, social sciences, and humanities, researchers rely more on knowledge produced in other fields. In earlier studies, especially involving the social sciences and humanities, researchers have been found to be active in using literature from other disciplines (FinELib 2012).
H7: Decreased dependence on other fields is connected to active communication in academic forums.
With respect to publishing practices, the hypothesis is confirmed. There is some evidence that those using literature mainly from their own field are the most active publishers in academic article orientation. Therefore, one can apply Becher’s (1989) terms and state that those in convergent fields publish more for academic audiences. In Whitley’s (1984) terms, fields exhibiting high mutual dependence and low task uncertainty produce more in academic forums than do those exhibiting low mutual dependence and high task uncertainty. For reading practices, the hypothesis is not confirmed. The extent of use of literature from one’s own and other scientific fields does not have a significant correlation with academic reading activity.
H8: Increased dependence on other fields is connected to active communication in professional forums.
The hypothesis is supported. Those using literature from various fields show the most active professional orientation in publishing and reading of literature.
Therefore, in using Becher’s (1989) terms, researchers in divergent fields communicated more with a professional audience than did those in convergent fields. In Whitley’s (1984) terms, fields having low mutual dependence and high task uncertainty rely more on professional communication when compared to fields exhibiting high mutual dependence and low task uncertainty. The results confirm Fry and Talja’s (2004) hypothesis as to the spread within literature and publishing practices.
7.2.3 Dependence between researchers
Dependence between researchers was measured through items asking the typical number of co-authors that the researchers have when publishing. In general, the number of co-authors is highest in hard-pure fields such as health-care sciences, biological and environmental sciences, multidisciplinary biosciences, and the natural sciences. In the technical sciences, social sciences, and humanities, the majority of the respondents publish alone or with one or two co-authors. These results are consistent with findings from earlier studies (e.g., Puuska & Miettinen 2008).
H9: Respondents who are highly dependent on other researchers communicate more in academic forums than do those who have been less dependent.
With respect to publishing practices, the hypothesis is confirmed. Number of co-authors has a significant influence on academic article publishing orientation.
Those publishing with more co-authors are more active publishers of academic articles than are those who publish alone or as a member of a small group. In Becher’s (1989) terms, publishing in academic forums is more active in ‘urban’ as opposed to ‘rural’ fields. On the other hand, Whitley’s (1984) concept of high
mutual dependence with low task uncertainty is linked to active publishing in academic forums. The hypothesis is not correct in relation to reading practices.
Dependence between researchers has no relationship to academic reading activity.
H10: Those who have been less dependent on other researchers communicate more in professional forums than those who have been more dependent.
This hypothesis is confirmed. The number of co-authors has a significant relationship with professional and industrial publishing activity and with professional reading activity. Those publishing alone or with only a small group communicate more actively with professional and industrial audiences. In Becher’s (1989) terms, rural fields are more dependent on professional audiences than are urban fields. Also, Whitley’s (1984) low mutual dependence and high task uncertainty are related to reliance on professional communication.