Same data—different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science

Jochen Gläser, W. Glänzel, Andrea Scharnhorst

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Science studies are persistently challenged by the elusive structures of their subject matter, be it scientific knowledge or the various collectivities of researchers engaged with its production. Bibliometrics has responded by developing a strong and growing structural bibliometrics, which is concerned with delineating fields and identifying thematic structures. In the course of these developments, a concern emerged and is steadily growing. Do the sets of publications, authors or institutions we identify and visualise with our methods indeed represent thematic structures? To what extent are results of topic identification exercises determined by properties of knowledge structures, and to what extent are they determined by the approaches we use? Do we produce more than artefacts? These questions triggered the collective process of comparative topic identification reported in this special issue. The introduction traces the history of bibliometric approaches to topic identification, identifies the major challenges involved in these exercises, and introduces the contributions to the special issue.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-18
Number of pages18
JournalScientometrics
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - Mar 7 2017

Fingerprint

science
science studies
knowledge
artifact
history

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Library and Information Sciences
  • Law

Cite this

Same data—different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science. / Gläser, Jochen; Glänzel, W.; Scharnhorst, Andrea.

In: Scientometrics, 07.03.2017, p. 1-18.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d2c66392c23247949204f66b6fff4f7a,
title = "Same data—different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science",
abstract = "Science studies are persistently challenged by the elusive structures of their subject matter, be it scientific knowledge or the various collectivities of researchers engaged with its production. Bibliometrics has responded by developing a strong and growing structural bibliometrics, which is concerned with delineating fields and identifying thematic structures. In the course of these developments, a concern emerged and is steadily growing. Do the sets of publications, authors or institutions we identify and visualise with our methods indeed represent thematic structures? To what extent are results of topic identification exercises determined by properties of knowledge structures, and to what extent are they determined by the approaches we use? Do we produce more than artefacts? These questions triggered the collective process of comparative topic identification reported in this special issue. The introduction traces the history of bibliometric approaches to topic identification, identifies the major challenges involved in these exercises, and introduces the contributions to the special issue.",
author = "Jochen Gl{\"a}ser and W. Gl{\"a}nzel and Andrea Scharnhorst",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s11192-017-2296-z",
language = "English",
pages = "1--18",
journal = "Scientometrics",
issn = "0138-9130",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Same data—different results? Towards a comparative approach to the identification of thematic structures in science

AU - Gläser, Jochen

AU - Glänzel, W.

AU - Scharnhorst, Andrea

PY - 2017/3/7

Y1 - 2017/3/7

N2 - Science studies are persistently challenged by the elusive structures of their subject matter, be it scientific knowledge or the various collectivities of researchers engaged with its production. Bibliometrics has responded by developing a strong and growing structural bibliometrics, which is concerned with delineating fields and identifying thematic structures. In the course of these developments, a concern emerged and is steadily growing. Do the sets of publications, authors or institutions we identify and visualise with our methods indeed represent thematic structures? To what extent are results of topic identification exercises determined by properties of knowledge structures, and to what extent are they determined by the approaches we use? Do we produce more than artefacts? These questions triggered the collective process of comparative topic identification reported in this special issue. The introduction traces the history of bibliometric approaches to topic identification, identifies the major challenges involved in these exercises, and introduces the contributions to the special issue.

AB - Science studies are persistently challenged by the elusive structures of their subject matter, be it scientific knowledge or the various collectivities of researchers engaged with its production. Bibliometrics has responded by developing a strong and growing structural bibliometrics, which is concerned with delineating fields and identifying thematic structures. In the course of these developments, a concern emerged and is steadily growing. Do the sets of publications, authors or institutions we identify and visualise with our methods indeed represent thematic structures? To what extent are results of topic identification exercises determined by properties of knowledge structures, and to what extent are they determined by the approaches we use? Do we produce more than artefacts? These questions triggered the collective process of comparative topic identification reported in this special issue. The introduction traces the history of bibliometric approaches to topic identification, identifies the major challenges involved in these exercises, and introduces the contributions to the special issue.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014572826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014572826&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11192-017-2296-z

DO - 10.1007/s11192-017-2296-z

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85014572826

SP - 1

EP - 18

JO - Scientometrics

JF - Scientometrics

SN - 0138-9130

ER -