人文學資源報告 第一組 The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship

組員介紹 圖資三 黃紹軒 圖資二 郭家寧 圖資二 劉威廷 圖資二 周依蝶 圖資二 謝宇昇

Introduction Prices for and numbers of journals in the sciences and in technical and medical fields have increased exponentially over the last two decades, strangling library budgets and making measures such as cancellation programs for serials 期刊的價格為何以及數量在最後的二十年對於科學技術和 醫療領域以指數的方式規律增加，抑制了圖書館的預算以 及做了測量像是節目普遍的連續取消。 Another significant effect of the crisis has been what some have called “the ‘death’ of the scholarly monograph in the humanities 而另一個對於危機重大的影響則是”死亡是人文學科的學術 性專題論文”。

libraries have smaller and smaller funds available to purchase books in all fields. Anna H. Perrault found that there was a 27.76 % decline in the total number of non- serial imprints acquired. 圖書館的資金則會越來越少來購買任何領域的書籍。Anna H. Perrault發現將1989年與1985年圖書館研究學會資料比 較，指出對於所有並非連續性的版本說明取得有27.76 %的 衰落 Lindsay Waters reported that 30 years ago college and university libraries would buy 1,250 to 1,500 copies of any book “that had successfully gone through the rigorous scholarly review process” by a publisher. Now publishers can expect to sell only about 275 copies worldwide Lindsay Waters，則指出三十年前，學院和大學圖書館均 會購買按照出版者所有書的1,250至1,500的書籍拷貝本”順 利的審核了嚴謹的學術回顧”。現在出版者在這世界只能夠 期望賣出275本拷貝本。

Libraries are unable to buy many scholarly books and publishers cannot continue publishing them 圖書館並不能購買過多的學術性書籍以及出版者不能夠繼 續出版的 humanities collections seem to be more at risk than those in other disciplines. Perrault found that the decline in the number of monograph titles acquired by ARL libraries between 1985 and 1989 was highest in the humanities at 31.98%, compared to 28.88% for the social sciences and 15.81% for the sciences 人文學科的搜藏相較於其他學科似乎是比較有風險的。 Perrault發現在1985年和1989年之間，專題論文標題數量的 衰落在ARL圖書館的獲取是最高的，在人文學科高達 31.98%，相較於社會科學的28.88%以及科學的15.81%。

Review of the literature humanists tend to work alone rather than collaboratively, and their research is characterized by an individual approach, in which “the individual scholar’s interpretation is paramount” (Stone 1982, 294). 根據他們的論著，人文學者應該傾向獨立工作而不是合作 並進，而且他們研究出其特徵是個人主義，就好像Stone提 過的『獨立學者所詮釋的是最好的』 In terms of research method, the humanist is “more attuned to techniques of browsing as an adjunct to the use of bibliographic tools than is any other type of researcher” (Perrault 1983, 4). 針對研究方法而言，『人文學比任何其他的類型的研究更 適合使用書目工具作為輔助』

Both Perrault and Stone observed that the monograph, rather than the journal article, is the dominant form of library material used by scholars in the humanities, although a variety of archival materials, such as manuscripts and photographs, are vital primary sources for research (Perrault 1983, 4–5; Stone 1982, 296–297). 雖然有些資料是非常重要的來源，如：手稿、照片，但 Perrault 和 Stone認為對於人文學者專著才是主要的材料而 不是雜誌中的文章。 Perrault and Stone noted that humanists tend to use materials that are older than those non-humanists use; currency is not a vital characteristic of humanists’ materials Perrault 和 Stone指出相較於非人文學者，人文學者往往使 用較舊的資源；流行不是人文學資源的特性。

Richard Heinzkill stated in his study of journals devoted to English literary scholarship that 75% of the cited references were to monographs, while 20% were to journals (Heinzkill 1980, 355). Richard Heinzkill聲明雜誌中他有關英國文學的研究有75% 的參考資源是專著，20%是雜誌。 Madeline Stern analyzed references from periodical articles on three creative writers and three literary movements. Of the citations in articles about individual writers, 82.7% were to books and 15.1% were to journals; in the articles about literary movements, 78.8% of the citations were to books, and 16.5% were to journals (Stern 1983, 203, 206). Madeline Stern從期刊文章中3個作家和3個文學運動中分析 其參考文獻。引文文章中有關於個別作家的，82.7%是書 籍專著而15.1%是期刊論文；文章中有關於文學運動的， 78.8%是書籍引文而16.5%是期刊論文。

in monographs in British and American literature, on average, 72 in monographs in British and American literature, on average, 72.2% of the citations were to books, and 14.5% were to articles (Cullars 1985, 516) 在英美文學的專著中，平均72.2%的引文出自於圖書， 14.5%的來自期刊 In evaluating a randomized sample of books and articles in American literature, John Budd observed that 64% of the citations were to monographs and 23.0% were to journals (Budd 1986, 192). 在隨機抽取圖書以及美國文學文章的調查中，John Budd發現有64%引文來自專著23%出自期刊。

Several of the studies included categories for types of publication other than books or periodicals, and the total for these categories ranged from 2.0% to 15.8%. Manuscripts, dissertations, newspapers, theses, unpublished letters, artifacts, and other miscellaneous sources were included. 許多研究報告類型除了以書籍或期刊的類型出版物之 外還有其他類型的出版物，而這些類別的所佔所有資 類型出版物的2.0 ％到15.8 ％ 。其中包括手稿，論文， 報紙，論文，未發表的信件，文物，和其他各式各樣 的類型也包括在其中。

被引用文獻的出版年 The most recent bit of scholarship is by no means always the better one (Weintraub 1980) 在近期內的學術不是最好的(溫特勞布1980年) Most of the studies showed about 70%-80% were more than 12 years. 許多的研究表示大約有70%~80%的引用文獻皆是超過 12年的文獻

Garfield (1980) used the A&HCI (Arts and Humanities Citation Index) produced a list of the 100 most cited authors in the humanities in 1977-1978. Many of the authors cited were poets, novelists, and other writer likely to have been cited as primary sources(原典). He found that 10% of the authors lived before 1400 A.D. and 60% were born before 1900. Garfield（ 1980 ）使用藝術與人文引用文獻索引製作 一個100位被引用最多的作者名單於1977-1978年當中人 文學科家。許多作者引用了詩人，小說家，和其 他作 家是被列為原典的。他在之中發現其中有10 ％的作者 是西元1400年以前的和有60 ％的作者是在1900年之前 出生的。

Primary materials remain a highly significant part of humanities scholarship. 資料來源是人文學中一個很重要的部分。 The characteristics of discourse in the humanities articulated by Perrault and Stone have been confirmed and elaborated by other researchers through citation analysis. Weintraub’s 1980 explanation of these research habits and preferences as a function of the humanist’s conception of knowledge and more subjective, rather than empirical, approach to study still seems to ring true:

The scientist is motivated by the belief that he may find the truth about his object studied. A historian, however, may only hope to write a history of his subject and not the history of it ... The humanist’s work consists less of sequentially interrelated blocks of knowledge than is true of the scientist’s work, even if every individual finding may pose a question for the next viewer. Humanists’ bodies of knowledge are rarely – like mathematics – sequentially and hierarchically ordered. The complex interrelations of insights – and often they only exist in some minds – form at best reasonable patterns of meaning, plausibly arranged views of data in which, one hopes, the major data at least fit one another. (Wentraub 1980, 30–31) This study will explore how the humanistic approach to knowledge adapts to today’s strained publishing environment.

Even given the predominance of the monograph, the role of the scholarly article in humanities research is significant. 即使考慮到主導地位的專著，在人文研究的學術文章所扮 演的角色仍是重大的。 Lindholm-Romantschuk and Warner postulated that the reason for the greater impact of the monograph is that in the humanities “a monograph may tend to embody a more significant intellectual contribution and a synthesis of a larger body of research than a journal article” Lindholm-Romantschuk 與 Warner假設that the reason for the greater impact of the mono專書影響如此巨大的理由， ”在人文學科“的專著可能往往體現更重要的智力貢獻與綜 合一個比雜誌上各大的的研究文章“

Electronic media have been proposed as another alternative publishing format. Given the 0.07% citation rate for web sites as primary materials and the 0.08% citation rate for web sites as secondary materials in this study, the answer to the question of whether electronic publishing is becoming an acceptable alternative to print would seem a resounding “NO.” 電子媒體已被提出作為其他載體格式。 鑑於作為原始資料 的0.07% 引文率為0.07 ％的和二次文獻引文率為0.08 ％。 在這項研究中， 是否是電子出版成為一個可以代替印刷出 版的答案 “NO.” 似乎為一個響亮的“不 However, ambivalence about using digital media as a major channel for scholarly communication remains. 但是如何使用數位媒體作為一項重大學術交流渠道，仍然 是個矛盾 。

Core journals and publishers core groups of journals and publishers of books and book articles could be identified. 期刊的主要團體和書籍的出版者是可以被辨認的。 Of interest is the dominance of university presses within this community. In two of his studies, Cullars categorized his random samples of citations according to type of publisher. He found that in his sample from fine arts monographs, 50.6% of the works cited were published by university presses ( Cullars 1992, 332) 在社區裡，大學出版部支配著興趣。在他(Cullars)的兩個 研究中，Cullars根據出版者將隨機抽樣的引文做分類。發 現在他的藝術專題論文樣品中，有50.6%的論文在大學新 聞和他的樣品中被引證出版。

It appears that the impact of university presses is even greater in this study’s sample. In the combined core group of book and book article publishers identified here (with duplicates eliminated), there were 24 publishers of which 17, or 70.8%, were university presses. 這項研究中的引證資源評估方法，對研究的樣品是大學出 版部是很大的衝擊。在結合書和書籍文章的核心出版者都 在這裡辨認(當複製品消滅時)資源。 Moreover, of the 20 core journals, nine were published by seven university presses, and six of these seven were also on the list of core book and book article publishers. 而且，20份核心期刊，有九個是被大學出版部所出版，並 且有六或七個是在核心書籍和書籍文章出版者的名單上。

Of the remaining 11 core journals, seven were published by a university or university department, three by scholarly organizations, and one by an independent group with a university affiliation. University presses made up the most dominant sector not only of book and book article publishers, but also of publishers of core journals. 持續的十一份核心期刊中，有七件是由大學或大學學 系所出版的，三份由學術组織和一個由大學加入的一 個獨立小組。大學出版部使支配的區域不僅是書和書 籍的文章出版者，也有核心期刊的出版。

Conclusion Clearly the scholarly monograph in the humanities is not dead. In the field of nineteenth-century literary studies examined here, scholars still generally fit the traditional profile, using a large number of primary sources, drawing upon secondary sources from a broad age spectrum, and relying heavily on the monograph format, for both primary and secondary materials. 清楚地說，在人文學科的學術專題論文並沒有消失。 在這領域中，十九世紀的文藝研究仍然被審查，為學 者通常使用大量的主源，以之符合傳統形象。對於主 要和次要材料，得到在二次文獻一個寬廣的年齡範圍 和強力依靠專題論文的樣式。

Electronic publishing is not considered a viable alternative to print publishing – yet. Articles form an important aspect of literary research, but are not substitutes for monographs. 電子出版對印刷出版並沒有一個可行的選擇。文章形 成文藝研究的一個重心，但並不是專題論文的代替。 The importance of the monograph underscores the need for careful evaluation of collection policies in the humanities in order to preserve and to attempt to restore the status of the humanities monograph in collections. 專題論文的重要性強調對蒐集政策的評估需要，以及 為了保存和恢復人文學科的人文學科專題論文的蒐集 狀態。

More important, however , it suggests the need for ongoing support for efforts to find new ways of publishing monographs and addressing the problematic wider issues in scholarly publishing. 更加重要的是，然而，它建議對持續的支持的需要努 力發現出版專題論文和演講有問題的廣泛的問题新的 辦法在博學出版。