Science of retracted science: a citation analysis of the arts and humanities domain

In the scholarly publishing domain, a retraction is raised when a specific publication is considered erroneous by the venue in which it appeared after it was published. The aim of this work is uncovering new insights and learn new important information to help us understand the retraction phenomenon in the arts and humanities domain. Our investigation is based on a methodology defined using quantitative and qualitative measures derived from previous studies in the transdisciplinary research field of “science of science” (SciSci). The designed methodology takes into account a general case of retraction and applies a citation analysis based on five phases. Citations to retracted publications (before and after their retraction) are gathered and characterized with a set of attributes, including general metadata and information extracted from citing entities’ full text. The annotated characteristics are further considered for a statistical and a textual analysis (i.e., a topic modeling analysis). The contribution of this thesis is grounded by addressing the following research questions: (RQ1) How did scholarly research cite retracted humanities publications before and after their retraction? (RQ2) Did all the humanities areas behave similarly concerning the retraction phenomenon? (RQ3) What are the main differences and similarities in the retraction dynamics between the humanities domain and the STEM disciplines? RQ1 and RQ2 are addressed by tuning and applying the methodology on the analysis of the retracted publications in the humanities domain. RQ3 is addressed on two levels, i.e., considering and comparing: (L1) the outcomes of the past studies on the retraction in STEM, and (L2) the results obtained from an analysis of a retraction case in STEM using the defined methodology.

Development Aid to Water Management in Mali: The Actors, ‘Global’ Paradigms, and ‘Local’ Translations

Development aid involves a complex network of numerous and extremely heterogeneous actors. Nevertheless, all actors seem to speak the same ‘development jargon’ and to display a congruence that extends from the donor over the professional consultant to the village chief. And although the ideas about what counts as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aid have constantly changed over time —with new paradigms and policies sprouting every few years— the apparent congruence between actors more or less remains unchanged. How can this be explained? Is it a strategy of all actors to get into the pocket of the donor, or are the social dynamics in development aid more complex? When a new development paradigm appears, where does it come from and how does it gain support? Is this support really homogeneous? To answer the questions, a multi-sited ethnography was conducted in the sector of water-related development aid, with a focus on 3 paradigms that are currently hegemonic in this sector: Integrated Water Resources Management, Capacity Building, and Adaptation to Climate Change. The sites of inquiry were: the headquarters of a multilateral organization, the headquarters of a development NGO, and the Inner Niger Delta in Mali. The research shows that paradigm shifts do not happen overnight but that new paradigms have long lines of descent. Moreover, they require a lot of work from actors in order to become hegemonic; the actors need to create a tight network of support. Each actor, however, interprets the paradigms in a slightly different way, depending on the position in the network. They implant their own interests in their interpretation of the paradigm (the actors ‘translate’ their interests), regardless of whether they constitute the donor, a mediator, or the aid recipient. These translations are necessary to cement and reproduce the network.