Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 103, Issue 2, pp 687–705 | Cite as

Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks

  • Aurora González-Teruel
  • Gregorio González-Alcaide
  • Maite Barrios
  • María-Francisca Abad-García
Article

Abstract

There has been an increase in research published on information behavior in recent years, and this has been accompanied by an increase in its diversity and interaction with other fields, particularly information retrieval. The aims of this study are to determine which researchers have contributed to producing the current body of knowledge on this subject, and to describe its intellectual basis. A bibliometric and network analysis was applied to authorship and co-authorship as well as citation and co-citation. According to these analyses, there is a small number of authors who can be considered to be the most productive and who publish regularly, and a large number of transient ones. Other findings reveal a marked predominance of theoretical works, some examples of qualitative methodology that originate in other areas of social science, and a high incidence of research focused on the user interaction with information retrieval systems and the information behavior of doctors.

Keywords

Information behavior Research fields Co-authorships Co-citation analysis 

References

  1. Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 403–412. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhaji, T. (2012). Exploring the relationship between research in information retrieval and information seeking behavior, 1979–2008. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  3. Badar, K., Hite, J. M., & Badir, Y. F. (2013). Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance: The case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 94(2), 755–775. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0764-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149–159. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199404)45:3<149:AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2003). Pajek. Analysis and visualization of large networks. In M. Jünger & P. Mutzel (Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 77–103). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bates, M. J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online review, 13(5), 407–424. doi: 10.1108/eb024320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bilal, D. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine. I. Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 646–665. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:7<646:AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgman, C. L., Hirsh, S. G., Walter, V. A., & Gallagher, A. L. (1995). Children’s searching behavior on browsing and keyword online catalogs. The science library catalog project. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(9), 663–684. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199510)46:9<663:AID-ASI4>3.0.CO;2-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broder, A. (2002). A taxonomy of web search. ACM SIGIR Forum, 36(2), 3–10. doi: 10.1145/792550.792552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Case, D. O. (2012). Looking for information. A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (3rd ed.). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  12. Case, D. O., & Higgins, G. M. (2000). How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, Y.-W. (2011). A comparative study of the research literature on information needs and information seeking: A bibliometric and social network analysis. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 48(3), 347–380.Google Scholar
  14. Chatman, E. A. (1996). The impoverished life-world of outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(3), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chatman, E. A. (1999). A theory of life in the round. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Information seeking on the web: An integrated model of browsing and searching. First Monday, 5(2). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/729.
  17. Covell, D. G., Uman, G. C., & Manning, P. R. (1985). Information needs in office practice: Are they being met? Annals of Internal Medicine, 103(4), 596–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox, A. M. (2012). An exploration of the practice approach and its place in information science. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 176–188. doi: 10.1177/0165551511435881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davenport, E. (2010). Confessional methods and everyday life information seeking. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 44, 533–562. doi: 10.1002/aris.2010.1440440119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dervin, B., & Nilan, M. (1986). Information needs and uses. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 21, 3–33.Google Scholar
  22. Ellis, D. (2011). The emergence of conceptual modelling in information behaviour research. In A. Spink & J. Heinström (Eds.), New directions in information behaviour (Vol. 1, pp. 17–35). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. doi: 10.1108/S1876-0562(2011)002011a005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fidel, R., Davies, R. K., Douglass, M. H., Holder, J. K., Hopkins, C. J., Kushner, E. J., et al. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 24–37. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:1<24:AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-W.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Fisher, K. E., Erdelez, S., & McKechnie, L. E. (Eds.). (2005). Theories of information behavior (pp. xix–xxii). Medford: Information Today.Google Scholar
  26. Fisher, K. E., & Julien, H. (2011). Information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 43, 1–73. doi: 10.1002/aris.2009.1440430114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 3(1), 215–239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.Google Scholar
  29. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. González-Teruel, A., & Abad García, M.-F. (2012). Grounded theory for generating theory in the study of information behavior. Library and Information Science Research, 34(1), 31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gorman, P. N. (1995). Information needs of physicians. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(10), 729–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houston, R. D. (2009). A model of compelled nonuser of information. University of Texas at Austin, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  35. Ingwersen, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: Elements of a cognitive IR theory. Journal of Documentation, 52(1), 3–50. doi: 10.1108/eb026960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ingwersen, P., & Järvelin, K. (2005). The turn. integration of information seeking and retrieval in context (pp. 1–455). Springer: Berlin.MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Estimates of the continuously publishing core in the scientific workforce. PLoS One, 9(7), e101698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101698.s004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jamali, H. R. (2013). Citation relations of theories of human information behaviour. Webology, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n1/a106.html
  39. Julien, H. (1996). A Content Analysis of the Recent Information Needs and Uses Literature. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Julien, H., & Duggan, L. J. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of the information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 22(3), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Julien, H., Given, L. M., & Opryshko, A. (2013). Photovoice: A promising method for studies of individuals’ information practices. Library and Information Science Research, 35(4), 257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2013.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Julien, H., Pecoskie, J., & Reed, K. (2011). Trends in information behavior research, 1999–2008: A content analysis. Library and Information Science Research, 33(1), 19–24. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). A systematic review of interactive information retrieval evaluation studies, 196–2006. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 745–770. doi: 10.1002/asi.22799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Krikelas, J. (1983). Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly, 19(2), 5–20.Google Scholar
  46. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1993). Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library and information services. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  48. Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004). Seeking meaning: A process approach to library and information services (2nd ed.). Westport: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  49. Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science’s first hundred years. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 997–1016. doi: 10.1002/asi.22645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lazonder, A. W., Biemans, H. J., & Wopereis, I. G. (2000). Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 576–581. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:6<576:AID-ASI9>3.0.CO;2-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lee, D., Goh, K. I., Kahng, B., & Kim, D. (2010). Complete trails of coauthorship network evolution. Physical Review E, 82(2), 026112. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.026112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Li-Ping, K. (2010). Introduction to information seeking behavior. A review of literature and field practice directions. Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(1), 65–78.Google Scholar
  53. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462–1480. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marchionini, G. (1989). Information-seeking strategies of novices using a full-text electronic encyclopedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(1), 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McKechnie, L. E., Baker, L., Greenwood, M., & Julien, H. (2002). Research method trends in human information literature. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3, 113–125.Google Scholar
  56. McKechnie, L. E., Goodall, G. R., Lajoie-Paquette, D., & Julien, H. (2005). How human information behaviour researchers use each other’s work: A basic citation analysis study. Information Research, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper220.html
  57. McKechnie, L. E., Pettigrew, K. E., & Joyce, S. L. (2001). The origins and contextual use of theory in human information behaviour research. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 2, 47–63.Google Scholar
  58. McKenzie, P. J. (2003). A model of information practices in accounts of everyday-life information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 59(1), 19–40. doi: 10.1108/00220410310457993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Milojević, S., Sugimoto, C. R., Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2011). The cognitive structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1933–1953. doi: 10.1002/asi.21602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. Complex Networks Lecture Notes in Physics, 650, 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olsson, M. R. (2006). Beyond “needy” individuals: Conceptualizing information behavior. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 43–55. doi: 10.1002/meet.1450420161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Olsson, M. R. (2012). Ciphers to this great accompt. The Shakespearian Social Sense-Making of theatre professionals. In G. Widén-Wulff & K. Holmberg (Eds.), Social information research (Vol. 5, pp. 17–42). Bingley: Emerald. doi: 10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)0000005004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palmquist, R. A., & Kim, K. S. (2000). Cognitive style and on-line database search experience as predictors of web search performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 558–566. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:6<558:AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. W. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday. Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.Google Scholar
  67. Pettigrew, K. E. (1999). Waiting for chiropody: Contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behaviour among attendees at community clinics. Information Processing and Management, 35(6), 801–817. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00027-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 642–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A. M., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  70. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145–161. doi: 10.1002/asi.10017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26(6), 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “Way of Life”. Library and Information Science Research, 17(3), 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (1991). Publications dynamics: Models and indicators. Scientometrics, 20(1), 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sin, S.-C. J. (2011). International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1770–1783. doi: 10.1002/asi.21572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J. (2004). Web search: Public searching of the web. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  76. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Talja, S., Tuominen, K., & Savolainen, R. (2005). “Isms” in information science: Constructivism, collectivism and constructionism. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 79–101. doi: 10.1108/00220410510578023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taylor, R. S. (1991). Information use environments. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 217–255). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  79. Tuominen, K. (1997). User-centered discourse: An analysis of the subject positions of the user and the librarian. Library Quarterly, 67(4), 350–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vakkari, P. (2008). Trends and approaches in information behaviour research. Information Research, 13(4). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper361.html
  81. Wang, P., Berry, M. W., & Yang, Y. (2003). Mining longitudinal web queries: Trends and patterns. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(8), 743–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang, P. L., & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project. Study I. document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Williamson, K. (1998). Discovered by chance: The role of incidental information acquisition in an ecological model of information use. Library and Information Science Research, 20(1), 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, P. (1983). Second-hand knowledge. An inquiry into cognitive authority. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  86. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49–56.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, T. D. (2008). The information user: Past, present and future. Journal of Information Science, 34(4), 457–464. doi: 10.1177/0165551508091309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilson, T. D. (Ed.). (2013). Theory in information behaviour research. Sheffield: Eiconics.Google Scholar
  90. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1136099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yan, E., & Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107–2118. doi: 10.1002/asi.21128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurora González-Teruel
    • 1
  • Gregorio González-Alcaide
    • 1
  • Maite Barrios
    • 2
  • María-Francisca Abad-García
    • 1
  1. 1.History of Science and Documentation DepartmentUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Methodology of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations