Measuring the semantic integrity of scientific fields: a method and a study of sociology, economics and biophysics
- 326 Downloads
The paper introduces a concept for measuring the interpretive fragmentation of scientific fields by the analysis of their citation networks. Transitive closure in two-mode networks is the basis of the proposed measurement. To test the validity of the concept two analyses are presented. One compares the integrity of two social sciences, sociology and economics, and a natural science, biophysics. The results are in line with the widely held opinion, that because of the lack in cumulative and consensual knowledge production mechanisms the social sciences are more disintegrated. Sociology is considerably more fragmented then economics, as the different paradigm structure of these disciplines would predict. As a second test, the fragmentation of scholarly communication inside and between the sub-fields of sociology is measured. The results correctly indicate that meaning making processes are taking place inside invisible colleges.
KeywordsNetwork analysis Paradigms Citation analysis Meaning Ambiguity Integration
I thank Róbert Tardos, Balázs Vedres, Vladimir Batagelj, Andrew Abbott, Erzsébet Forczek, Attila Gulyás, László Barabási, Zoltán Kmetty and the participants of the 9th EUSOC seminar and XIX SUNBELT for their ideas, help and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the program “Increasing the Innovational, Research and Development Output of the Corvinus University of Budapest by the Establishment of Five Interdisciplinary Centres of Excellence”/TÁMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0005.
- Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (1998). PAJEK—program for large network analysis. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.27.9156. Accessed 25 October 2010.
- Cole, S. (2001a). What’s wrong with sociology? New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Cole, S. (2001b). Why sociology doesn’t make progress like the natural sciences. In S. Cole (Ed.), What’s wrong with sociology? (pp. 37–60) New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Frigotto, L. & Riccaboni, M. (2010). A few special cases: Scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Proceedings from Sunbelt XXX. Riva del Garda Fierecongressi. Italy: Trento.Google Scholar
- Fuchs, S. (2001). What makes sciences ‘Scientific’. In J. S. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of Western sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Leahey, E., & Moody J. (2007). Sociological Innovation through Subfield Integration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York. 10 August, Manuscript http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/4/1/1/p184115_index.html. Accessed 25 October 2010.
- Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Parkland: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
- Opsahl, T. (2009). Structure and evolution of weighted networks. http://opsahl.co.uk/tnet/content/view/15/27/. Accessed 25 October 2010.
- Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdiscipinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaulation, 15(3), 187–195.Google Scholar
- Stinchcombe, A. (2001). Disintegrated disciplines and the future of sociology. In S. Cole (Ed.), What’s wrong with sociology? (pp. 37–60) New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Turner, S. P., & Turner, J. H. (1990). The impossible science: An institutional analysis of American sociology. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
- Wernicke, S., & Rasche, F. (2006). FANMOD: A tool for fast network motif detection. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 22(9), 1152–1153. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl038. http://theinf1.informatik.uni-jena.de/~wernicke/motifs/index.html. Accessed 25 October 2010.
- White, H. C. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge (2nd ed.). Princetion: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar