32 research outputs found
A New Approach to Analyzing Patterns of Collaboration in Co-authorship Networks - Mesoscopic Analysis and Interpretation
This paper focuses on methods to study patterns of collaboration in
co-authorship networks at the mesoscopic level. We combine qualitative methods
(participant interviews) with quantitative methods (network analysis) and
demonstrate the application and value of our approach in a case study comparing
three research fields in chemistry. A mesoscopic level of analysis means that
in addition to the basic analytic unit of the individual researcher as node in
a co-author network, we base our analysis on the observed modular structure of
co-author networks. We interpret the clustering of authors into groups as
bibliometric footprints of the basic collective units of knowledge production
in a research specialty. We find two types of coauthor-linking patterns between
author clusters that we interpret as representing two different forms of
cooperative behavior, transfer-type connections due to career migrations or
one-off services rendered, and stronger, dedicated inter-group collaboration.
Hence the generic coauthor network of a research specialty can be understood as
the overlay of two distinct types of cooperative networks between groups of
authors publishing in a research specialty. We show how our analytic approach
exposes field specific differences in the social organization of research.Comment: An earlier version of the paper was presented at ISSI 2009, 14-17
July, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revised version accepted on 2 April 2010 for
publication in Scientometrics. Removed part on node-role connectivity profile
analysis after finding error in calculation and deciding to postpone
analysis
Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems
In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the
conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with
empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our
review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities,
referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the
indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated
with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their
unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for
both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive
evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M.
(2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some
corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality
The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science<sup>®</sup>. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (<it>i.e.</it>, that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.</p
The Collapse of Venezuela vs. The Sustainable Development of Selected South American Countries
Sketching the first 45 years of the journal Psychophysiology (1964-2008): A co-word-based analysis
Visualizing linguistic and cultural differences using web Co-link data
The study examined Web co-links to Canadian university Web sites. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to analyze and visualize co-link data as was done in co-citation analysis. Co-link data were collected in ways that would reflect three different views, the global view, the French Canada view, and the English Canada view. Mapping results of the three data sets accurately reflected the ways Canadians see the universities and clearly showed the linguistic and cultural differences within Canadian society. This shows that Web co-linking is not a random phenomenon and that co-link data contain useful information for Web data mining. It is proposed that the method developed in the study can be applied to other contexts such as analyzing relationships of different organizations or countries. This kind of research is promising because of the dynamics and the diversity of the Web
Trauma, discourse and communicative limits
This article was published in the journal, Critical Discourse Studies [© Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group)]. The definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900903180970Trauma is a term that is widely used in memory studies, along with a number of other academic fields and disciplines. This article takes issue with its loose and indiscriminate application. Such application generates an unresolved paradox: trauma is associated with memories of events that are uncontrollable, yet large-scale commemorative practices or processes of social reconciliation assume that experiences of these are controllable, amenable to being assimilated into narrative form and so available for rhetorical purposes. Following an examination of this paradox, the article looks in detail at two examples of experience involving painful memories of two kinds – those which have become integrated into relatively easily told stories, and which can then involve rhetorical work, and those which have not become woven into a life-narrative and so are not available for such work. The article also considers some of the methodological and analytical problems that occur when traumatic or painful memories arise in the course of sociological fieldwork