Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 163–177 | Cite as

Measuring the semantic integrity of scientific fields: a method and a study of sociology, economics and biophysics

  • Attila V. VargaEmail author
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Network analysis Paradigms Citation analysis Meaning Ambiguity Integration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theroy and Experiment. doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 http://sites.google.com/site/findcommunities/. Accessed 25 October 2010.
  4. Bockman, J., & Eyal, G. (2002). Eastern Europe as a laboratory for economic knowledge: The transnational roots of neoliberalism. The American Journal of Sociology, 108(2), 310–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breiger, R. L. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53(2), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, S. (2001a). What’s wrong with sociology? New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Davis, J. B. (2008). The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2003). A measure for the cohesion of weighted networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 193–202. doi: 10.1002/asi.10155.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fourcade, M. (2006). The construction of a global profession: The transnationalization of economics. The American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fuchs, S. (2001). What makes sciences ‘Scientific’. In J. S. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of Western sociology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Parkland: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Moody, J., & Light, R. (2006). A view from above: The evolving sociological landscape. The American Sociologist, 37(2), 67–86. doi: 10.1007/s12108-006-1006-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Opsahl, T. (2009). Structure and evolution of weighted networks. http://opsahl.co.uk/tnet/content/view/15/27/. Accessed 25 October 2010.
  19. 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
  20. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2009). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0041-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Small, H. G. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Social Studies of Science, 8(3), 327–340. doi: 10.1177/030631277800800305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Turner, S. P., & Turner, J. H. (1990). The impossible science: An institutional analysis of American sociology. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. 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.
  25. White, H. C. (2008). Identity and control: How social formations emerge (2nd ed.). Princetion: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sociology and Social PolicyCorvinus University of BudapestBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Sociological Doctoral SchoolEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations