In the eye of beholder? The notions of quality in the humanities.

This article examines the tacit and explicit notions of research quality in the humanities through qualitative interviews with 33 European humanities scholars, analyzed using Max Weber's theory of authority. It identifies four ideal types of quality notions—administrative, individual, semi-administrative/semi-individual, and moderate individual—each reflecting different sources of authority: traditional (academic mentors), legal-rational (administrative bodies and policies), charismatic (influential scholars), and an additional internal source based on individual experience. The study highlights tensions between externally imposed administrative quality criteria, often focused on quantifiable metrics, and the more nuanced, context-dependent understandings held by individual researchers. It concludes that recognizing these diverse and sometimes conflicting notions of quality can improve communication and evaluation practices within humanities research communities.