Cognitive dimensions

The first part of Becher’s study is an attempt to categorise disciplines into broader discipline groups. Cognitive dimensions describe the territories of science that focus on the nature of the knowledge produced in the discipline. Salter and Hearn (1996) have defined characteristics related to what constitutes a discipline. A discipline is a community of scholars studying topics from a certain perspective and with certain methods, having its own communication forums, such as specific journals and conferences. Disciplines are institutionalised as university departments, research councils, and societies. As a unit of analysis, they are troublesome, because they embrace a wide range of sub-specialities. Some specialities within a given discipline may have very little in common culturally while at the same time sharing cultural similarities with a speciality outside the discipline (Becher & Trowler 2001; Fry & Talja 2004). Specialities are less formalised than disciplines. Although they may have their own communication arenas, they are seldom recognised institutionally (Fry 2003).

Becher’s categorisation cannot take into account differences between sub-fields.

Accordingly, Becher and Trowler (2001, 39) point out that some disciplines are more difficult to classify than others and taxonomy is useful only at a broad, general level of analysis. Regardless of the difficulties, Becher’s categorisation has been used in recent years in explaining disciplines’ differences in communication and publishing practices (e.g., Puuska & Miettinen 2008; Kautto & Talja 2007; Fry 2003). Categorisation is needed when communication practices are compared between disciplines.

Based on the studies by Kolb (1981) and Biglan (1973), Becher (1989) classes disciplines along their cognitive dimensions, into hard and soft but also pure and applied. This categorisation creates four basic groups of ‘knowledge domains’, referred to as ‘hard-pure’, ‘soft-pure’, ‘hard-applied’, and ‘soft-applied’ (these are summarised in Table 7).

Table 7: Becher’s discipline groupings (adapted from Becher & Trowler 2001, 36) research is cumulative and progressive. The atomistic nature of the knowledge makes it possible to divide a research question into separate sub-questions. The hierarchy of research topics is commonly shared among the researchers, and this usually makes the decision on what research questions are the most important ones to study an obvious one for the researchers. The nature of the knowledge is usually universal, and research methods are mainly quantitative. In hard fields, methods tend to determine the choice of problems, while in soft fields the problems determine more typically the choice of methods. Research topics in hard-pure fields are anonymous and value-free. There are clear criteria for judging the significance of research. Research results are usually discoveries and explanations.

Physics and chemistry are examples of hard-pure disciplines (Becher & Trowler 2001, 25–26).

Publishing research results for an academic audience is a vital part of researcher work in hard-pure fields. Results are usually published as journal or conference papers, allowing one to publish as quickly as possible. The share of monographs is small and the pace of publishing rapid. In some fields – for example, in biochemistry – researchers may publish 10–15 articles in a year. However, in fields such as mathematics, researchers may publish considerably fewer articles but longer ones. (Ibid., 110–114).

4.1.1.2 Hard-applied fields

Technical sciences are categorised as hard-applied sciences. The nature of the research is pragmatic and purposive. This research is interested in mastering of the environment. Research approaches are often heuristic-oriented, and both qualitative and quantitative methods are used. Unlike in pure research, practice is at the core of the research and the results often consist of products and procedures.

Research is evaluated in terms of the functionality of the products and protocols produced in the studies. Applied knowledge is more often open for external influences, while pure knowledge is more self-regulating (Becher & Trowler 2001, 36). In hard-applied fields, the publishing forums vary. Results may be published as technical reports, patents, and conference proceedings or in journal articles, depending on the topic and the audience of the research. However, publishing is not as important in applied fields as in pure fields, because the research in the former is not theoretical. Especially when research is done for private companies, results are not necessarily published at all. (Ibid., 110–114)

4.1.1.3 Soft-pure fields

The humanities and pure social sciences are placed in the soft-pure category.

The knowledge produced is of a holistic nature. Researchers may study the same topic over and over again. This research is interested in details, and qualitative methods are often used. Unlike in hard sciences, research here is usually value-laden and personal. There is no common agreement about the central research topics and questions within research fields. Results bring usually understanding and interpretation of the questions (Becher & Trowler 2001, 36). In soft-pure fields,

research results are usually published as monographs and in long journal articles.

Research topics are discussed comprehensively. The speed of publishing is low, and researchers may publish only one or two articles a year, writing a monograph at the same time. (Ibid., 110–114).

4.1.1.4 Soft-applied fields

Applied social sciences (such as education or law) form the last category, soft-applied. Knowledge in soft-applied fields is functional and utilitarian. Practice is at the core of the research. Case studies and study of practices are typical research approaches here. The research results take the form of protocols and procedures (Becher & Trowler 2001, 39). In soft-applied fields, the most commonly used publishing forums are journals and monographs. Results are usually published for both scientific and professional audiences. (Ibid., 110–114)