databases and publications

[Martin Haspelmath]

Thanks, Nigel, for this very instructive comment. The key sentence that 
probably nobody will take issue with is: "In preparing a good database, 
corpus, digitised archive or whatever those responsible make innumerable 
judgments based on their analytical skill, knowledge, and experience and 
I believe they deserve credit for that directly."

But to resolve the issue that Nigel identified in the NWO evaluation, 
couldn't we simply reconceptualize shared databases as "publications"?

When the NWO says that "all that counted for reputational and career 
advancement purposes was publications (whether in electronic or printed 
journals), not the electronic or other resources that underlie and give 
rise to them", one could achieve the desired result by declaring these 
other activities as "publications". At least if they fulfill the other 
criteria (permanent accessibility, peer review, citability, 
standardization), this should not be a problem -- so we can't blame the 
funding agencies, but only ourselves, if we fail to present our work in 
a way that is makes classifying it difficult.

Martin


Nigel Vincent wrote:
> I have been following the discussion about databases and publication with
> interest, though as an outsider rather than as someone with direct experience
> of building or maintaining any typological resource. Gideon Goldberg's
> trenchant intervention however raises, in a sharply polarised way, the question
> of how scholarly credit and professional recognition is to be given, and
> thereby interacts with a recent and perhaps relevant experience of my own.
> The context is that in October last year I was on a panel that visited and
> evaluated research in a broad range of arts and humanities disciplines,
> including linguistics, in a number of universities in the Netherlands. In
> preparation for our visit we were sent by each participating university
> detailed accounts of current research activities including comprehensive lists
> of publications over the last six years. The research activities listed
> included precisely the compilation of various kinds of databases, as well as
> other electronic resources such as interactive websites, and digitization
> projects for manuscripts and other cultural artefacts.
> It transpired however that when it came to measuring the output of individual
> researchers all that counted was publications (whether in electronic or printed
> journals). In other words, the policy operated in the Netherlands, and which it
> was explained to me derives in turn from the guidelines on research evaluation
> issued by the NWO, is more or less in line with Gideon's view: what counts for
> reputational and career advancement purposes are the articles and books, not
> the electronic or other resources that underlie and give rise to them.
> As people may know, we will in 2008 in the UK have a national research
> evaluation of our own, and for this many disciplines have made a special
> effort, in drawing up evaluation criteria, to allow electronic resources such
> as databases and digitization projects to count in their own right and not via
> the publications they generate. In other words we have adopted a stance more or
> less the opposite of that advocated by Gideon and recommended by the NWO. My
> own view is that the UK panels are right to take the stance they have done. I
> say this not out of blind loyalty to the UK system but because I would not
> accept that the distinction between materials and research is anything like as
> sharp as Gideon claims it to be. There is not for me a clearcut distinction
> between the 'mere accumulation of data' (Gideon's words) and the use to which
> data is put in analysis, argumentation and theory construction.
> In preparing a good database, corpus, digitised archive or whatever those
> responsible make innumerable judgments based on their analytical skill,
> knowledge, and experience  and I believe they deserve credit for that directly,
> not via an additional layer of publication. By the same token national funding
> bodies should take such projects into account in determining funding
> priorities. This does not mean there cannot be good, bad or indifferent
> databases, etc just as there can be good, bad or indifferent books and articles
> and good, bad or indifferent critical editions or catalogues. And this is what
> research evaluation panels, for better or worse, seek to judge. And to do this
> they will need the kinds of information about how the databases are compiled
> that have been discussed in the recent exchanges. It will also be valuable to
> have reviews of databases just as of books, again as been proposed in the
> recent discussion.
> Nigel
>
>
>
>   


-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6	
D-04103 Leipzig      
Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616