IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v98y2014i3d10.1007_s11192-013-1166-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viewing information literacy concepts: a comparison of two branches of knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • María Pinto

    (University of Granada)

  • Antonio Pulgarín

    (University of Extremadura)

  • M. Isabel Escalona

    (University of Extremadura)

Abstract

An integrative approach is taken to mapping the field of research on information literacy in health sciences and social sciences. The objective was to identify the conceptual structure of these areas, and to determine their main research fronts and descriptors, and the relationships between them. A further objective is to determine whether information literacy is a consistent area. The basis of the study is the use of the program VOSViewer to analyse the co-occurrence of the areas’ descriptors, grouping them into clusters and generating a map of their connections. Information retrieval was by retrospective searches of the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier). The results for the health sciences area yielded four clusters. The centralmost descriptor was Education (with a total link strength of 1,470), which was strongly linked to the descriptor “Information retrieval”, and weakly linked to “Information skills”, “Information seeking”, and “Information Science”. In social sciences, there were six clusters. “Information literacy” was now the descriptor with most occurrences (812) as well as having the greatest weight—a total link strength of 2,340—followed by “Education” with 839 occurrences. The resulting maps provide a graphical identification of the main research issues and trends in information literacy in these two areas of expertise which, according to the data of the present study, correspond to lesser (health sciences) and greater (social sciences) scientific production. Information literacy was seen to be conceptually more consistent in health sciences than in social sciences. However, at least for the moment, it is a still growing conceptual space that is in need of solider indices of consistency and specificity.

Suggested Citation

  • María Pinto & Antonio Pulgarín & M. Isabel Escalona, 2014. "Viewing information literacy concepts: a comparison of two branches of knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2311-2329, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:98:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1166-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1166-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-1166-6
    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/s11192-013-1166-6?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. María Pinto & María Isabel Escalona-Fernández & Antonio Pulgarín, 2013. "Information literacy in social sciences and health sciences: a bibliometric study (1974–2011)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1071-1094, June.
    2. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman & Rommert Dekker & Jan van den Berg, 2010. "A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2405-2416, December.
    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. Huchang Liao & Ming Tang & Li Luo & Chunyang Li & Francisco Chiclana & Xiao-Jun Zeng, 2018. "A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Medical Big Data Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Yating Li & Ye Chen & Qiyu Wang, 2021. "Evolution and diffusion of information literacy topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4195-4224, May.
    3. Yi Feng & Shaoze Cui, 2021. "A review of emergency response in disasters: present and future perspectives," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 1109-1138, January.
    4. María Pinto & M. Isabel Escalona & Antonio Pulgarín & Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, 2015. "The scientific production of Ibero-American authors on information literacy (1985–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1555-1576, February.
    5. Chi-Swian Wong, 2021. "Science Mapping: A Scientometric Review on Resource Curses, Dutch Diseases, and Conflict Resources during 1993–2020," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-48, July.
    6. Salma El Bied & Lorenzo Ros Mcdonnell & Ma Victoria de-la-Fuente-Aragón & Diego Ros Mcdonnell, 2024. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Real Estate Research Trends," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, September.

    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. María Pinto & M. Isabel Escalona & Antonio Pulgarín & Alejandro Uribe-Tirado, 2015. "The scientific production of Ibero-American authors on information literacy (1985–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1555-1576, February.
    2. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Nina Sakinah Ahmad Rofaie & Seuk Wai Phoong & Muzalwana Abdul Talib & Ainin Sulaiman, 2023. "Light-emitting diode (LED) research: A bibliometric analysis during 2003–2018," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 173-191, February.
    4. Cathelijn J. F. Waaijer & Cornelis A. Bochove & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "On the map: Nature and Science editorials," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 99-112, January.
    5. María Pinto & Rosaura Fernández-Pascual & David Caballero-Mariscal & Dora Sales, 2020. "Information literacy trends in higher education (2006–2019): visualizing the emerging field of mobile information literacy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1479-1510, August.
    6. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    7. Yating Li & Ye Chen & Qiyu Wang, 2021. "Evolution and diffusion of information literacy topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4195-4224, May.
    8. Evi Sachini & Nikolaos Karampekios & Pierpaolo Brutti & Konstantinos Sioumalas-Christodoulou, 2020. "Should I stay or should I go? Using bibliometrics to identify the international mobility of highly educated Greek manpower," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 641-663, October.
    9. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    10. Raphaël Maucuer & Alexandre Renaud & Sébastien Ronteau & Laurent Muzellec, 2022. "What can we learn from marketers? A bibliometric analysis of the marketing literature on business model research," Post-Print hal-03718522, HAL.
    11. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    12. Tomasz Zema & Adam Sulich, 2022. "Models of Electricity Price Forecasting: Bibliometric Research," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Ahmed Zainul Abideen & Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram & Shahryar Sorooshian, 2023. "Scope for Sustainable Development of Small Holder Farmers in the Palm Oil Supply Chain—A Systematic Literature Review and Thematic Scientific Mapping," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, January.
    14. Paúl Carrión-Mero & Néstor Montalván-Burbano & Fernando Morante-Carballo & Adolfo Quesada-Román & Boris Apolo-Masache, 2021. "Worldwide Research Trends in Landslide Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-24, September.
    15. Hakan Saraç, 2024. "Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on the Digital Nomad with VOSviewer," Journal of Social Policy Conferences, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, issue 87, pages 58-68, December.
    16. Hicks, Alison, 2022. "The missing link: Towards an integrated health and information literacy research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    17. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    18. Robertson, Jeandri & Pitt, Leyland & Ferreira, Caitlin, 2020. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the public sector: A bibliographic analysis," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    19. Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria & Guns, Raf & Rousseau, Ronald & Engels, Tim C.E., 2015. "Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 704-721.
    20. Hana Tomaskova & Martin Kopecky, 2020. "Specialization of Business Process Model and Notation Applications in Medicine—A Review," Data, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-42, October.

    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:98:y:2014:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-1166-6. 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.