IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v8y2014i3p693-709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: A case of science and technology studies

Author

Listed:
  • Milojević, Staša
  • Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
  • Larivière, Vincent
  • Thelwall, Mike
  • Ding, Ying

Abstract

Genre is considered to be an important element in scholarly communication and in the practice of scientific disciplines. However, scientometric studies have typically focused on a single genre, the journal article. The goal of this study is to understand the role that handbooks play in knowledge creation and diffusion and their relationship with the genre of journal articles, particularly in highly interdisciplinary and emergent social science and humanities disciplines. To shed light on these questions we focused on handbooks and journal articles published over the last four decades belonging to the research area of science and technology studies (STS), broadly defined. To get a detailed picture we used the full-text of five handbooks (500,000 words) and a well-defined set of 11,700 STS articles. We confirmed the methodological split of STS into qualitative and quantitative (scientometric) approaches. Even when the two traditions explore similar topics (e.g., science and gender) they approach them from different starting points. The change in cognitive foci in both handbooks and articles partially reflects the changing trends in STS research, often driven by technology. Using text similarity measures we found that, in the case of STS, handbooks play no special role in either focusing the research efforts or marking their decline. In general, they do not represent the summaries of research directions that have emerged since the previous edition of the handbook.

Suggested Citation

  • Milojević, Staša & Sugimoto, Cassidy R. & Larivière, Vincent & Thelwall, Mike & Ding, Ying, 2014. "The role of handbooks in knowledge creation and diffusion: A case of science and technology studies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 693-709.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:693-709
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771400056X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2014.06.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter van den Besselaar & Gaston Heimeriks, 2006. "Mapping research topics using word-reference co-occurrences: A method and an exploratory case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 377-393, September.
    2. Martin, Ben R. & Nightingale, Paul & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2012. "Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1182-1204.
    3. Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras & Étienne Vignola‐Gagné, 2006. "The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 997-1004, June.
    4. Ma Ching-to Albert, 2008. "Health Care Economics and Policy: An Introduction," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 1-4, January.
    5. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    6. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    7. Menezes, Flavio M., 2008. "An Introduction to Auction Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199275991.
    8. Peter van den Besselaar, 2000. "Communication between Science and Technology Studies Journals: A Case Study in Differentiation and Integration in Scientific Fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 169-193, February.
    9. Staša Milojević & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2011. "The cognitive structure of Library and Information Science: Analysis of article title words," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1933-1953, October.
    10. Fagerberg, Jan & Fosaas, Morten & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1132-1153.
    11. Per Ahlgren & Bo Jarneving & Ronald Rousseau, 2003. "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(6), pages 550-560, April.
    12. Peter Van Den Besselaar, 2001. "The cognitive and the social structure of STS," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(2), pages 441-460, June.
    13. Landström, Hans & Harirchi, Gouya & Åström, Fredrik, 2012. "Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1154-1181.
    14. Rousseau, Ronald & García-Zorita, Carlos & Sanz-Casado, Elias, 2013. "The h-bubble," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 294-300.
    15. Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "Information metrics (iMetrics): a research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 141-157, April.
    16. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Federica Bologna & Angelo Iorio & Silvio Peroni & Francesco Poggi, 2023. "Do open citations give insights on the qualitative peer-review evaluation in research assessments? An analysis of the Italian National Scientific Qualification," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(1), pages 19-53, January.
    2. Pan, Xuelian & Yan, Erjia & Cui, Ming & Hua, Weina, 2018. "Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: A comparative study of three tools," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 481-493.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen, 2018. "Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 869-892, May.
    2. Staša Milojević & Loet Leydesdorff, 2013. "Information metrics (iMetrics): a research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 141-157, April.
    3. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Daria Maltseva & Vladimir Batagelj, 2020. "iMetrics: the development of the discipline with many names," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 313-359, October.
    6. Clausen, Tommy & Fagerberg, Jan & Gulbrandsen, Magnus, 2012. "Mobilizing for change: A study of research units in emerging scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1249-1261.
    7. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    8. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    9. Truyken L. B. Ossenblok & Tim C. E. Engels, 2015. "Edited books in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Characteristics and collaboration analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 219-237, July.
    10. Martin, Ben R. & Nightingale, Paul & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2012. "Science and technology studies: Exploring the knowledge base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1182-1204.
    11. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    12. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Anabel Fernández-Mesa & Nicolás Robinson-García, 2020. "‘Getting out of the closet’: scientific authorship of literary fiction and knowledge transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 56-85, February.
    13. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan & Silvio Peroni & Chao Che, 2020. "Nine million book items and eleven million citations: a study of book-based scholarly communication using OpenCitations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1097-1112, February.
    14. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    15. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    16. Fagerberg, Jan & Landström, Hans & Martin, Ben R., 2012. "Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1121-1131.
    17. Yang, Siluo & Han, Ruizhen & Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2016. "Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): Introducing author keyword coupling analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 132-150.
    18. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    19. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    20. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Genres; STS; Handbooks;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:8:y:2014:i:3:p:693-709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.