Four hypotheses addressing discipline-aligned differences in scholars’
publishing and reading practices were formed on the basis of Becher’s (1989) taxonomy of discipline groups and previous research on communication practices in various disciplines. Results related to communication practices in hard-pure, hard-applied, soft-pure, and soft-applied fields are presented below.
The natural sciences, health-care sciences, and biological and environmental sciences were categorised as hard-pure fields in line with Becher’s taxonomy. The technical sciences were categorised as hard-applied, the humanities as soft-pure, and the social sciences as soft-applied.
7.1.1 Communication practices in hard-pure fields
H1: In hard-pure fields (the natural sciences, health-care sciences, and biological and environmental sciences), international academic journals are the main communication forums.
The hypothesis was confirmed. Academic article orientation was the main publishing orientation in hard-pure fields. The atomistic, cumulative, and universal nature of the knowledge produced in hard-pure disciplines supports publishing in
article form. Accordingly, international journal articles were the most commonplace type of academic publication, and respondents representing hard-pure disciplines published more international journal articles than did respondents in other disciplines. In multidisciplinary biosciences and health-care sciences in particular, respondents published significantly more in academic article orientation than did respondents from other disciplines. These findings are similar to those of earlier studies (Piro et al. 2013; Tenopir et al. 2012a; Puuska 2010; Puuska &
Miettinen 2008; Kyvik 1991).
However, this study showed that publishing in international journals was not as active in the natural sciences as in other hard-pure fields. In addition to journals, conference-related publishing orientation was common in the natural sciences.
These results contradict earlier studies’ findings, in work focusing on the natural sciences in a university context (Piro et al. 2013; Puuska & Miettinen 2008). In the natural sciences, industrial publishing orientation too was more common than it was in other hard-pure fields. This points to a more applied nature of research in natural sciences in state research institutes as compared to universities. Publishing practices in the natural sciences in state research institutes may be closer to those in hard-applied fields. The majority of respondents representing the natural sciences (65%) work at the Geological Survey of Finland, the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and VTT. In all of these research institutes, expert services additional to research work are produced; this may explain the applied nature of the work.
Especially at VTT, collaboration with private companies is commonplace. Also, the bibliometric review (see section 2.3.3) of publishing practices at these institutes showed that conference-related publishing was active in addition to journal publishing.
In addition to academic publishing, professional publishing orientation was emphasised in the biological and environmental sciences and in health-care sciences. Publishing articles in national academic journals and professional magazines was especially common in these fields. Earlier studies too, in a university context, have shown the importance of professional and national publishing in agriculture and forestry (Late & Puuska 2014; Puuska & Miettinen 2008). Puuska and Miettinen (2008) discovered that national and professional publishing was more important in the health-care sciences as compared to clinical medicine. In state research institutes, research examining health-care sciences has focused on public and occupational health. Finland’s largest state research institute conducting research into health-care sciences, THL, has emphasised its function as serving society, actors in the field, and decision-makers in central government and the
municipalities. Thereby, the health-care sciences in state research institutes have a close relationship to the professional, policy, and public audiences. In general, professional publishing seems to be more common in hard-pure fields in state research institutes than it is in a university context (Late & Puuska 2014; Puuska &
Miettinen 2008; Kyvik 1991).
As for perspective in reading practices, academic reading orientation was the main orientation in hard-pure fields. International academic journals were read especially actively. Earlier studies too have shown the importance of international journals as information sources in all disciplines (Tenopir et al. 2012a; FinELib 2012). In addition, international conference proceedings were actively read in the natural sciences. Earlier studies (Tenopir et al. 2012a; FinELib 2012) have emphasised the role of conference proceedings in the technical sciences but not in the natural sciences. The results of the present work point to the nature of research in the natural sciences in state research institutes and at universities as differing. In addition to scholarly literature, newspapers and magazines were actively read by researchers representing all hard-pure disciplines. Hicks & Wang (2013) brought up the importance of newspapers and magazines as information sources for scholars. In general, the professional reading orientation takes a more active form in biological and environmental sciences and multidisciplinary biosciences as compared to other hard-pure fields. This finding is in line with results pertaining to publishing practices in biological and environmental sciences. Fact reading is more active in multidisciplinary biosciences than in other hard-pure disciplines.
The findings indicate that in hard-pure fields the academic research market identified by Ylijoki and colleagues (2011) is most typical. Also, the professional market is emphasised in biosciences and environmental sciences and in health-care sciences, and the corporate market in the natural sciences.
7.1.2 Communication practices in hard-applied fields
H2: In hard-applied fields (technical sciences), researchers communicate in various forums but especially via conferences and by publishing research reports.
This hypothesis is confirmed. In this study, no single publishing orientation was identified as the most important in the technical sciences. Respondents representing the technical sciences published almost as actively in all publishing
orientations. Research approaches vary in hard-applied sciences, and communication can take place in various forums. Conference publishing orientation is more actively manifested in the technical sciences than in other disciplines. Respondents representing the technical sciences published especially often at international conferences. Publishing via national conferences was considerably less frequent. Earlier studies too have stressed the meaning of conferences in the technical sciences (Late & Puuska 2014; Piro et al. 2013;
Tenopir et al. 2012a; Puuska 2010; Puuska & Miettinen 2008; Kyvik 1991).
Academic article publishing orientation was just as active as conference publishing in the technical sciences. Articles in international journals were the main publishing forum in the academic article orientation. However, there was significantly less activity in academic article publishing orientation in the technical sciences than in other disciplines, apart from the humanities. According to Becher and Trowler (2001), publishing in hard-applied disciplines is not as important as it is in pure disciplines because the research is not usually theoretical in nature. Also in earlier studies done in a university context, journal publishing was found to be less active in the technical sciences than in other disciplines (Piro et al. 2013;
Puuska & Miettinen 2008). Late and Puuska (2014) showed that journal publishing in the technical sciences at state research institutes is less active than what is seen in the technical sciences at universities.
Use of professional publishing orientation too was active in the technical sciences. As the hypothesis predicted, research reports were the most commonplace professional publications in the technical sciences. In a finding consistent with results from Puuska and Miettinen (2008), professional publishing seems to be more active in state research institutes than at universities. Late and Puuska (2014) echo this conclusion. However, Puuska and Miettinen (2008) showed that there is a great variety within research fields in publishing for national and international audiences in the technical sciences. The results are hard to compare with those of earlier studies, because findings are highly dependent on the research fields selected for study.
Industrial publishing orientation is significantly more actively manifested in the technical sciences than in other disciplines. In comparison to those in other disciplines, the respondents representing the technical sciences had the most patents also18. This finding indicates that the corporate research market identified by Ylijoki and colleagues (2011) is stressed in hard-applied fields. When the
18 It is possible that the under-reprensentativeness of technical sciences may have had decreasing influence to the number of reported patents.
research objective involves commercial benefits, confidential research reports and patents are common outcomes of the research. The majority of respondents representing the technical sciences (68%) were working at VTT, where collaboration with the private sector is very commonplace. Also, the bibliometric study of publishing practices at VTT (see section 2.3.3) showed low academic publishing activity at VTT.
With respect to reading practices, the academic and professional reading orientations are the main orientations in technical sciences. The literature sources used most actively are international journals, newspapers and magazines, and professional magazines. Reading international conference proceedings is more active in the technical sciences than in other disciplines. Previous studies too have shown the importance of conference proceedings as information sources in the technical sciences (FinELib 2012; Tenopir et al. 2012a). In addition, fact-reading orientation is stressed in the technical sciences more than in other disciplines. Fact reading is focused on technical manuals. Overall, reading seems to be frequent in technical sciences in comparison to other disciplines. According to Allen & Cohen (1969, here Tenopir and King 1999), engineers rely more on personal contacts and research reports as information sources than they turn to journal articles.
7.1.3 Communication practices in soft-pure fields
H3: In soft-pure fields (the humanities), academic monographs and articles in edited works are the main academic communication forums. Research results are also actively popularised for general audiences.
This hypothesis is confirmed. With respect to the academic article orientation, respondents representing the humanities published mainly articles in edited works.
Publishing in journals was less frequent and was focused more on national journals.
Relative to other disciplines, the humanities showed less active publishing in academic article orientation. In addition, humanists published more monographs.
Earlier studies came to similar conclusions regarding academic publishing practices in the humanities (Piro et al. 2013; Puuska & Miettinen 2008; Kyvik 1991). As Becher and Trowler (2001) argued, the pace of academic publishing is relatively
slow in the humanities because of lack of competition and the comprehensive processing of the problems. Most of the respondents representing the humanities (86%) were working at the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland, from which research work has moved to the universities. Therefore, academic research work in the humanities is limited at state research institutes in Finland.
Professional publishing orientation is applied more actively in the humanities than is academic article and conference publishing. Publishing in newspapers and magazines is especially active in the humanities. These findings are supported by studies by Puuska and Miettinen (2008) and Kyvik (1991), and it is argued that research topics in the humanities are often interesting from the point of view of larger audiences. Accordingly, the public research market is stressed in soft-pure fields (Ylijoki et al. 2011). Industrial publishing orientation is very passive in the humanities. Also, Ylijoki and colleagues (2011) have stated that the corporate research market is almost non-existent in the humanities. The findings for the humanities support the results of the bibliometric review of publishing practices at the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland (see section 2.3.3).
As for reading practices, the professional reading orientation is the most active in the humanities. Newspapers and magazines are the most actively read professional literature. Academic reading is focused on monographs. Humanists read monographs significantly more than do those in all other fields, as has been noted in previous studies (FinELib 2012; Tenopir et al. 2012a). However, overall, academic reading is more passive in the humanities than in all the other disciplines.
This may be because research tasks were removed from the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland, where most of the humanist respondents worked.
Fact-reading orientation, on the other hand, is more active in the humanities than the other disciplines. However, fact reading in the humanities focuses solely on textbooks and handbooks. It is likely that reading of these books is so active in the humanities because researchers’ tasks at the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland include producing dictionaries. The findings are consistent with the study done by the FinELib (2012), which found that humanists were active readers of textbooks and handbooks.
7.1.4 Communication practices in soft-applied fields
H4: In soft-applied fields (the social sciences), researcher communication takes various forms:
reading and publishing monographs, articles in edited works, and articles in national and international journals. Communication in professional forums is active.
The hypothesis is supported. Respondents in the social sciences published actively in various forums. Academic article orientation has a relatively active manifestation in the social sciences. The most common publication types in this orientation were articles in international academic journals and articles in edited works. Academic monographs were also more actively published than in hard sciences. Conference-linked publications in the social sciences focused on international conferences. Earlier studies have shown the variety of publishing forums in the social sciences (Puuska & Miettinen 2008; Piro et al. 2013). Also, publishing practices in the social sciences have shifted toward international publishing in academic journals (Kyvik 2003; Puuska & Miettinen 2008).
Because of the practical nature of the knowledge produced in soft-applied disciplines (Becher & Trowler 2001), activity in professional publishing orientation was stronger in the social sciences than in other disciplines. In professional publishing orientation, social scientists published mainly research reports and articles in professional magazines. Social scientists produced research reports more actively than those in all other disciplines. Also, articles in national academic journals and in newspapers were produced actively. The results of Puuska and Miettinen (2008) and Kyvik (2005) support the finding as to the active role of social scientists in publishing for professional and also for more general audiences.
As for reading practices, academic reading orientation is the most actively expressed orientation in the social sciences. International academic journals are the most actively read form of academic literature. Also, social scientists read academic monographs more actively than did respondents representing hard sciences. Also, the activity in professional reading orientation is stronger here than in other disciplines. Newspapers and magazines and, at the same time, research reports are the most actively read professional publications. The findings support the argument as to the professional and practical nature of knowledge produced in soft-applied fields. They also are consistent with findings from earlier studies
(FinELib 2012; Tenopir et al. 2012a). In general, social scientists, together with biological and environmental scientists, were the most active readers.
The results can be linked to the findings of Ylijoki and colleagues (2011) about academic, policy, professional, and public research markets. We cannot identify any one research institute where most of the social scientists work; social scientists can be found at almost every institute. This indicates that the social sciences are a discipline that can be applied in (and linked to) many, quite different research contexts and markets. This may also be one factor behind the variety of communication practices seen in the social sciences.