Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 143–164 | Cite as

Fragmentation of the Intellectual Structure of Political Communication Study: Some Empirical Evidence

  • Yang Lin
  • Lynda L. Kaid
Article

Abstract

This study applies a method of author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of political communication study. Fifty one influential authors were selected from active members of the Political Communication Divisions of the International Communication Association (ICA), the National Communication Association (NCA), and the American Political Science Association (APSA). The results of the multidimensional scaling analysis and cluster analysis of these 51 selected authors' co-citation patterns show that intellectual fragmentation exists in political communication research; scholars with different academic backgrounds exhibit specialties using particular research approaches to study certain subjects in the field; scholars do not have much information exchange, and thus they are intellectually separate and confined within the boundaries of each fragment. The findings of this quantitative study complements and cross-validates the assessment made by other traditional qualitative reviews about the field.

Keywords

Communication Research Quantitative Study Information Exchange Multidimensional Scaling Research Approach 
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.
    P. Van Den Besselaar, L. Leydesdorff, Tracking change in the structure of communication networks. (Dutch) In: Proc. 2nd Dutch Information Science Conference. Leiden: Stinfon, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Leydesdorff, P. Van Den Besselaar, Scientometrics and Communication Theory: Towards Theoretically Informed Indicators. Scientometrics, 38 (1997) 155–174.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. S. Burt, Towards a structural theory of action. London: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Granovetter, The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, (1973) 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Van Den Besselaar, L. Leydesdorff, Mapping change in scientific specialties; a scientometric case study of the development of artificial intelligence. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 47 (1996) 415–436.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Leydesdorff, The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in S&T studies. Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 333–347.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Wouters, L. Leydesdorff, Has Price's Dream come through? Scientometrics, 31 (1994) 193–222.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Knoke, J. H. Kuklinsky, Network analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Wouters, The citation culture. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Noyons, Mapping of Scientometrics, Informetrics, Bibliometrics. (http://sahara.fsw.leidenuniv.nl/ed/sib/home.html)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Bhattacharya, P. K. Basu, Mapping a research area at the micro level using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 43 (1998) 359–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yang Lin
    • 1
  • Lynda L. Kaid
    • 2
  1. 1.School of CommunicationUniversity of AkronAkronUSA
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations