ABSTRACT
Scholars in the humanities rely on carefully-constructed prose to convey ideas, while many in the sciences deploy numerical precision instead. Although university administrators often tout multi- or inter-discipinarity, it is unclear whether there is a deep understanding of how these modes of investigation are different, and how those differences might be accommodated and supported. For example, the disciplines that use numbers as a chief mode of expression were from the beginning conceived, embodied with and configured for external assessment as part of their claims to authority. As a consequence, their metrics were not designed to assess other kinds of scholarship such as that of the arts and the humanities. And, read in the opposite direction, the fact that the humanities were never customised for those numerical-based controls should not be understood as a failing of the discipline, but as an integral dimension of its distinct practice. This contribution offers a study of documentary form in the academy. The discussion will examine how scholarship in different fields came to have different formal features. It will furthermore consider what the implications of these differences are for how the disciplines are now seen and assessed. By looking to the history and traditions of different forms of scholarship, this chapter seeks to offer insight into the current debates about how productivity and impact are to be defined, marked and assessed in the academy.
