An evaluation was made of the use of bibliometric indicators for five disciplines in the humanities (social history, general linguistics, general literature, Dutch literature, and Dutch language) and three disciplines in the social and behavioural sciences (experimental psychology, anthropology, and public administration) in the Netherlands. Articles in journals were the predominant outlet in all disciplines. Monographs and popularizing articles were more important outlets in 'softer' fields than in 'harder' ones. The enlightenment function of scholarship was especially evident in Dutch literature and language, and public administration. Only some of the humanities disciplines are locally oriented. Although many publications were written in English, only experimental psychology, general linguistics, anthropology, and general literature were internationally oriented regarding output media. The impact of departments differed greatly both within and between disciplines. For all disciplines, bibliometric indicators are potentially useful for monitoring international impact, as expert interviews confirmed. Especially in Dutch language, Dutch literature and public administration, ISI-citation data are not very useful for monitoring national impact.ber of studies has used bibliometric indicators to chart developments in the social sciences (e. g., Nederhof, 1985), while few studies have focused on the humanities (e. g., Frost;Garfield, 1980;Heinzkill, 1980).Various modes of development have been proposed for the natural sciences, the soci',d sciences, and the humanities. Price (1970) distinguished between the growth of knowledge from the 'skin' of science and from the 'body' of science: "the thinner the skin of science, the more crystalline the growth and the more rapid the process" (Price, 1970: 177). Price measured the growth of knowledge for a number of fields in a sample of 154 journal s by computing the percentage of references which were Scientometn'cs 15 (1989) Elsevier,
