Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 155–174 | Cite as

Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators

  • L. Leydesdorff
  • P. Van Den Besselaar
Future Perspectives

Abstract

The theory of citations should not consider cited and/or citing agents as its sole subject of study. One is able to study also the dynamics in the networks of communications. While communicating agents (e.g., authors, laboratories, journals) can be made comparable in terms of their publication and citation counts, one would expect the communication networks not to be homogeneous. The latent structures of the network indicate different codifications that span a space of possible “translations”. The various subdynamics can be hypothesized from an evolutionary perspective. Using the network of aggregated journal-journal citations inScience & Technology Studies as an empirical case, the operation of such subdynamics can be demonstrated. Policy implications and the consequences for a theory-driven type of scientometrics will be elaborated.

Keywords

Research Policy Social Study Triple Helix Translation System Citation Relation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. J. Lotka, The frequency distribution of scientific productivity,Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16 (1926) No. 12, 317–323.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. de Solla Price, A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27 (1976) No. 5/6, 292–306.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Bak, K. Chen, Self-organized criticality,Scientific American, January 1991, 26–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. R. Maturana, Biology of language: The epistemology of reality. In:G. A. Miller, E. Lenneberg (Eds),Psychology and Biology of Language and Thought. Essays in Honor of Eric Lenneberg, Academic Press, New York etc., 1978, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. S. Burt,Toward a Structural Theory of Action, Academic Press, New York etc., 1982.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. J. Pinch, Towards an analysis of scientific observations: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1985) 3–36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Amsterdamska, L. Leydesdorff, Citations: Indicators of significance,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 449–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Giddens,Central Problems in Social Theory, Macmillan, London, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change,Research Policy, 12 (1982) 299–316.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Callon, B. Latour, Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In:K. D. Knorr-Cetina, A. V. Cicourel (Eds),Advances in Social Theory and Methodology. Toward an Integration of Micro-and Macro-Sociologies, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1981, pp 277–303.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. R. Nelson, S. G. Winter,An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Blauwhof, Non-equilibria dynamics and the sociology of technology. In:Leydesdorff, Van den Besselaar,38 pp. 152–166.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Luhmann,Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow,The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Leydesdorff, The evolution of communication systems,Systems Research and Information Science, 6 (1994) 219–230.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Latour,The Pasteurization of France, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA/London, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Leydesdorff, Uncertainty and the communication of time,Systems Research, 11 (1994) No. 4, 31–51.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. A. Simon, The organization of complex systems. In:H. H. Patiee (Ed.),Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems, George Braziller, New York, 1973, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Kampmann, C. Haxholdt, E. Mosekilde, J. D. Sterman, Entrainment in a disaggregated long-wave model. In:Leydesdorff, Van den Besselaar, 38 pp. 109–124.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Leydesdorff,The Challenge of Scientometrics: The Development, Measurement and Self-Organization of Scientific Communications, DSWO Press, Leiden University, Leiden, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, H. Zuckerman,Toward a Metric of Science, Wiley, New York etc., 1978.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Small, E. Sweeney, E. Greenlee, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations II. Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 312–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Van den Besselaar, L. Leydesdorff, Mapping change in scientific specialties: A scientometric reconstruction of the development of artificial intelligence,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47 (1996) 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Leydesdorff, The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. R. Martin, J. Irvine, Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy,Research Policy, 12 (1983) No. 2, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. F. Moed, et al., The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance,Research Policy, 14 (1985) 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Chang, D. Dieks, The Dutch output of publications in physics,Research Policy, 5 (1976) 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. Leydesdorff, Towards a theory of citation. A reaction to MacRoberts & MacRoberts,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    U. Beck,Die Risiko-Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., 1986.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. R. Hofstadter,Gödel-Escher-Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    D. E. Rumelhardt, J. L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group,Parallel Distributed Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge/MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    E. S. Andersen,Evolutionary Economics. Post-Schumpeterian Contributions, Pinter, London, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    F. Narin, D. Olivastro, Status report: Linkabes between technology and science,Research Policy, 2lGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Katz, D. Hicks, M. Sharp, B. R. Martin,The Changing Shape of British Science, SPRU Special Report No. 3., Brighton, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Blauwhof,The Non-linear Dynamics of Technological Developments: An Exploration of Telecommunications Technology, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Barras, Interactive hmovation in financial and business services: The vanguard of the service revolution,Research Policy, 19 (1990) 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. Leydesdorff, H. Etzkowitz, Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations,Science and Public Policy, (forthcoming; October 1996).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. Leydesdorff, P. Van den Besselaar, Eds,Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New directions for technology studies, Pinter, London, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Leydesdorff
    • 1
  • P. Van Den Besselaar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology DynamicsAmsterdam(The Netherlands)
  2. 2.Department of Social Science InformaticsAmsterdam(The Netherlands)

Personalised recommendations