IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v113y2017i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2496-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Muh-Chyun Tang

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Yun Jen Cheng

    (National Taiwan University)

  • Kuang Hua Chen

    (National Taiwan University)

Abstract

As digital humanities continues to expand and become more inclusive, little is known about the extent to which its knowledge is integrated. A bibliometric analysis of published literature in digital humanities was conducted to examine the degree of its intellectual cohesion over time (1989–2014). Co-authorship, article co-citation, and bibliographic coupling networks were generated so SNA based cohesion analysis can be applied. Modularity maximization partition was also performed to both co-citation and “author bibliographic coupling” networks to identify main research interests manifested in the literature. The results show that, as publications in digital humanities continue to grow, its diversity and coherence, two hallmarks of interdisciplinarity, have shown signs of becoming more robust. The co-author network, however, remained rather fragmented, with collaboration mainly limited by language and geographic boundaries. The domain specific practices in digital humanities that might contribute to such fragmentation was discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Muh-Chyun Tang & Yun Jen Cheng & Kuang Hua Chen, 2017. "A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 985-1008, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2496-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2496-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2496-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2496-6?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. Ismael Rafols & Martin Meyer, 2010. "Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 263-287, February.
    2. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff & Alkim Almila Akdag Salah, 2010. "Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus “digital humanities” as a topic," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(4), pages 787-801, April.
    4. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    5. Erjia Yan & Ying Ding, 2012. "Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1313-1326, July.
    6. James Moody & Douglas R. White, 2000. "Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Conception of Social Groups," Working Papers 00-08-049, Santa Fe Institute.
    7. Alan L. Porter & Alex S. Cohen & J. David Roessner & Marty Perreault, 2007. "Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 117-147, July.
    8. Jon Leefmann & Clément Levallois & Elisabeth Hildt, 2016. "Neuroethics 1995-2012. A bibliometric analysis of the guiding themes of an emerging research field," Post-Print hal-02313439, HAL.
    9. Peng Liu & Haoxiang Xia, 2015. "Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 101-134, April.
    10. Francisco José Acedo & Carmen Barroso & Cristóbal Casanueva & José Luis Galán, 2006. "Co‐Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 957-983, July.
    11. Katherine W. McCain, 1990. "Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 433-443, September.
    12. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    14. Clément Levallois & John A. Clithero & Paul Wouters & Ale Smidts & Scott A. Huettel, 2012. "Translating upwards : linking the neural and social sciences via neuroeconomics," Post-Print hal-02313160, HAL.
    15. 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.
    16. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    17. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    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. Marcia Lei Zeng & Chris Alen Sula & Karen F. Gracy & Eero Hyvönen & Vânia Mara Alves Lima, 2022. "JASIST special issue on digital humanities (DH)," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(2), pages 143-147, February.
    2. José Alberto Molina & Alfredo Ferrer & David Iñiguez & Alejandro Rivero & Gonzalo Ruiz & Alfonso Tarancón, 2020. "Network analysis to measure academic performance in economics," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 995-1018, March.
    3. Wei‐Min Fan & Wei Jeng & Muh‐Chyun Tang, 2023. "Using data citation to define a knowledge domain: A case study of the Add‐Health dataset," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 81-98, January.
    4. Moshe Blidstein & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2022. "Towards a new generic framework for citation network generation and analysis in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4275-4297, July.
    5. Jan Luhmann & Manuel Burghardt, 2022. "Digital humanities—A discipline in its own right? An analysis of the role and position of digital humanities in the academic landscape," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(2), pages 148-171, February.
    6. José Alberto Molina & David Iñiguez & Gonzalo Ruiz & Alfonso Tarancón, 2018. "The Nobel Prize in Economics: individual or collective merits?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 966, Boston College Department of Economics.
    7. Fan, Yangliu & Lehmann, Sune & Blok, Anders, 2022. "Extracting the interdisciplinary specialty structures in social media data-based research: A clustering-based network approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).

    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. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    2. Yi Bu & Mengyang Li & Weiye Gu & Win‐bin Huang, 2021. "Topic diversity: A discipline scheme‐free diversity measurement for journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(5), pages 523-539, May.
    3. María del Carmen Calatrava Moreno & Thomas Auzinger & Hannes Werthner, 2016. "On the uncertainty of interdisciplinarity measurements due to incomplete bibliographic data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 213-232, April.
    4. Jorge Mañana Rodríguez, 2017. "Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in citation and reference dimensions: knowledge importation and exportation taxonomy of journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 617-642, February.
    5. Ugo Moschini & Elena Fenialdi & Cinzia Daraio & Giancarlo Ruocco & Elisa Molinari, 2020. "A comparison of three multidisciplinarity indices based on the diversity of Scopus subject areas of authors’ documents, their bibliography and their citing papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1145-1158, November.
    6. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    7. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    8. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    9. Lorenzo Cassi & Wilfriedo Mescheba & Élisabeth Turckheim, 2014. "How to evaluate the degree of interdisciplinarity of an institution?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1871-1895, December.
    10. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.
    11. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    12. Xuefeng Wang & Zhinan Wang & Ying Huang & Yun Chen & Yi Zhang & Huichao Ren & Rongrong Li & Jinhui Pang, 2017. "Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 2023-2039, June.
    13. Chen, Shiji & Qiu, Junping & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2021. "Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    14. Yang, Siluo & Wang, Feifei, 2015. "Visualizing information science: Author direct citation analysis in China and around the world," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 208-225.
    15. Lin Zhang & Beibei Sun & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Lixin Chen & Ying Huang, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 271-291, October.
    16. Song Yanhui & Wu Lijuan & Qiu Junping, 2021. "A comparative study of first and all-author bibliographic coupling analysis based on Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1125-1147, February.
    17. Jingjing Ren & Fang Wang & Minglu Li, 2023. "Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4383-4419, August.
    18. David Roessner & Alan L. Porter & Nancy J. Nersessian & Stephen Carley, 2013. "Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 439-468, February.
    19. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Zhang, Lin, 2018. "A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1182-1193.
    20. Wooseok Jang & Heeyeul Kwon & Yongtae Park & Hakyeon Lee, 2018. "Predicting the degree of interdisciplinarity in academic fields: the case of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 231-254, July.

    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:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2496-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.