Search Results
and the library . Library Quarterly 50 1 22 – 39 10.1086/629873 . Whitley , R 1984 The intellectual and social organization of the sciences Clarendon Press
Summary
The use of electronic data is steadily gaining ground in the study of the social organization of scientific and research communities, decreasing the researcher's reliance on commercial databases of bibliographic entries, patents grants and other manually constructed records of scientific works. In our work we provide a methodological innovation based on semantic technology for dealing with heterogeneity in electronic data sources. We demonstrate the use of our electronic system for data collection and aggregation through a study of the Semantic Web research community. Using methods of network analysis, we confirm the effect of Structural Holes and provide novel explanations of scientific performance based on cognitive diversity in social networks.
Abstract
Empirical research carried out on a representative sample of 921 scientists from Croatia has shown that scientific fields are important socio-cognitive productivity framework. First, this can be seen in significantly different patterns of the average scientific productivity of researchers in different fields. Second, significant are the differences in the social organization of scientific fields, especially in the fragmentation and organization of the research process, which manifest themselves with a different engagement intensity of the respondents in each stage of the project. Finally, scientific productivity predictors are structured, ranging from significant ones in some fields, to those significant everywhere (qualifications and project roles).
Abstract
Studies of journal citation patterns suggest that specialty areas within disciplines may be the most appro priate structural units for understanding the social organization of science. Citation studies necessarily are limited to scientists who publish, however, and studies of all members of particular disciplines would provide more general specialty structure data. Accordingly, this research applied factor analytic procedures previously used in studies of the structure of specialization among psychologists to all members of the Population Association of America. Four principal components derived from the self-designated specialties of these population scientist were rotated to a final solution by the varimax procedure and were interpreted as measuring, respectively,Social Emphasis, Geographic Emphasis, Formal Emphasis, andEpidemiological Emphasis. These results partially confirm the distinction sometimes made by population scientists between social demography and formal demography, but suggest this typology is incomplete. The results also illustrate techniques that could provide a useful alternative to citation analysis for researchers studying specialty structures in other disciplines.
Abstract
Although there is considerable consensus that Finance, Management and Marketing are ‘science’, some debate remains with regard to whether these three areas comprise autonomous, organized and settled scientific fields of research. In this paper we aim to explore this issue by analyzing the occurrence of citations in the top-ranked journals in the areas of Finance, Management, and Marketing. We put forward a modified version of the model of science as a network, proposed by Klamer and Van Dalen (J Econ Methodol 9(2):289–315, <cite>2002</cite>), and conclude that Finance is a ‘Relatively autonomous, organized and settled field of research’, whereas Management and (to a larger extent) Marketing are relatively non-autonomous and hybrid fields of research’. Complementary analysis based on sub-discipline rankings using the recursive methodology of Liebowitz and Palmer (J Econ Lit 22:77–88, <cite>1984</cite>) confirms the results. In conclusions we briefly discuss the pertinence of Whitley’s (The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, <cite>1984</cite>) theory for explaining cultural differences across these sub-disciplines based on its dimensions of scholarly practices, ‘mutual dependency’ and ‘task uncertainty’.
Abstract
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.
-government systems on society: social, economical, political, legal, and environmental aspects; E-government system evaluation: social, technological, political, and organizational aspects; E-society readiness: technological, social, organizational, political
particular, the notion of the small-world structure, may need to be qualified to take into account some of the social organization of science. The collaboration of scientists in closed groups can be influenced by additional features including interest in
how research productivity of women is affected by gender-based decisions made by others (Zuckerman 2001 ). Just as in society in general, there may exist mechanisms of discrimination in the social organization of science (Prpic 2002 ). Men outnumber
social organization of the sciences Clarendon Press Oxford . Wood , JB 1988 The growth of scholarship—An online bibliometric comparison of dissertations
