, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 229–252 | Cite as

A simple method for dynamic scientometrics using lexical analysis



Techniques for studying problematic networks in science and technology are principally derived either from citation analyses or from lexical methods. The former have been the object of many developments and improvements. A considerable range of applications exists within the practical constraint of their being limited to fields covered by the ISI databases. For the latter, the co-word method has a register of applications that up until now have been more specialized in the sociology of “science as it is done”, but it has in principle no field limitations. An important question is whether we can extend the application range of this analytical method to take in longer periods, and in particular to deal with historiography either on a large scale (at the level of a research field) or on a small scale (at the level of a process of discovery or invention). Here we propose a way of rendering lexical methods dynamic, more particularly through developing a rudimentary but precise technique to aid historiographical analysis. This method ofcritical variations is illustrated in a working example.


Research Field Citation Analysis Field Limitation Application Range Practical Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abernathy W.J., Clark K.B., Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction,Research Policy, 14, 1 (1985) 3–22.Google Scholar
  2. Bassecoulard-Zitt E., Contribution à la mise en oeuvre d'un logiciel d'analyse lecicographique dynamique, Mémorie de DEA, Université Paris IX Dauphine, Lamsade, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. Bauin S., Callon M., Courtial J.P., Turner W.A.,Les cartes stratégiques de la recherche: l'analyse des mots associés, CSI, programme STS-CNRS, December 1983.Google Scholar
  4. Benzecri J.P. et al.,L'Analyse des Données, 1, La Taxinomie, Paris, Dunod, 1980 (3rd edition).Google Scholar
  5. Braam R.R., Moed H.F., Van Raan A.F.J., Comparison and combination of co-citation and co-word clustering, In:Van Raan A.F.J., Nederhof A.J., Moed H.F. (Eds),Science and Technology Indicators, DSWO Press, University Press of Leiden, 1989, p. 309–337.Google Scholar
  6. Callon M., Courtial J.P., Turner W.A., Bauin S., From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis,Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 191–235.Google Scholar
  7. Callon M., Law, J., Rip A.,Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Courtial J.P., ‘Méthodes Statistiques’, Ecole d'Eté de Science de l'Information, DBMIST-CDST, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. Courtial J.P., ‘Qualitative Models, Quantitative Tools and Network Analysis’, Joint Conference of the 4S and EASST onThe Study of Science and Technology in the 1990's, Amsterdam, November, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. Garfield E., Citation indexes for science,Science, 122 (1955) 108–115.Google Scholar
  11. Garfield E., Sher I.H., Torpie R.J., The Use of Citations Data in Writing the History of Science, ISI, 1964.Google Scholar
  12. Garfield E., Primordial concepts, citation indexing and historiobibliography,Journal of Library History, 2 (1976) 235–249.Google Scholar
  13. Garfield E., Citation indexing, historio-bibliography and the sociology of science,Proceedings of the International Congress of Medical Librarianship, Amsterdam, 1969.Google Scholar
  14. Garfield E., Computer-aided historiography,Current Contents, 14 (1982) 5–9.Google Scholar
  15. Gondran M., Minoux M.,Graphes at Algorithms, Paris, Eyrolles, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. Kessler M. M., An experimental study of bibliographic coupling between technical papers,American Documentation, 10–25 January 1963.Google Scholar
  17. Merton R.K.,The Sociology of Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973 (reprints).Google Scholar
  18. McCain K.W., The author cocitation structure of macroeconomics,Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 277–289.Google Scholar
  19. McCain K.W., The paper trails of scholarship: Mapping the literature of genetics,Library Quarterly, 56 (1986) 258–271, reprinted inCurrent Contents, 4 (January 25 1988) 4–11.Google Scholar
  20. Moravcsik M.J., Murugesan P., Citation patterns in scientific revoutions,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 161–169.Google Scholar
  21. Mulkay M.J., Three models of scientific development,Sociological Review, (23, August 1975) 509–526.Google Scholar
  22. Price D.J. de Solla, Networks of scientific papers,Science, 149 (1965) 510–515.Google Scholar
  23. Rip A., Courtial J.P., Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400.Google Scholar
  24. Small H.G., Co-citation in the scientific literature,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24 (1973) 265–269.Google Scholar
  25. Small H.G., Griffith B.C., The structure of scientific literature 1 & 2,Science Studies, (1974) 17–40 and 265–269.Google Scholar
  26. Small H.G., Structural dynamics of scientific literature,International Classification, 3 (2) (1976) 67–74.Google Scholar
  27. Small H.G., Crane D., Specialities and disciplines in science and social science: An examination of their structure using citation indexes,Scientometrics, 1 (1979) 445–461.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Zitt
    • 1
  1. 1.LERIA/INRANantes Cedex 03(France)

Personalised recommendations