Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Đilda Pečarić ( dpecaric@ffzg.hr ) The University of Zagreb PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Đilda Pečarić ( dpecaric@ffzg.hr ) The University of Zagreb

Đilda Pečarić ( dpecaric@ffzg.hr ) The University of Zagreb

168 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Đilda Pečarić ( dpecaric@ffzg.hr ) The University of Zagreb

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of Information Sciences, INFuture 2009, 4 – 6 November 2009. Relationship Between Conceptual Knowlege and Research Front. On Example of Information Science Research Production Đilda Pečarić (dpecaric@ffzg.hr) The University of Zagreb Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Department of Information Sciences Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

  2. Problem • Information Science has not examined relationships between: • research front: authors determined by impact factor, i.e. speed of citation on one side, and • continuity of dominant authors in certain scientific paradigm, on the other side.

  3. Problem • Information Science has not examined relationships between: • Constants in Scientific Communication • and • Different role of citation in Scientific Communications

  4. Problem • The objective of analysis: • we explored, by citation analysis, features of communication models that are dominant in scientific communication

  5. The object of analysis: doctoral dissertations • Research is done on the example of biblometric analysis of doctoral dissertations in Information Science at Croatian Universities

  6. Data about dissertation • From 1978 to 2007 at Croatian universities 134 doctoral dissertations were done in seven different disciplines: • information systems: 53 • communicology: 22 • information science: 21 • librarianship: 20 • museology: 9 • archivistics and documentation: 8 • lexicography: 1

  7. Data about cited documents • From 22,210 cited bibliographic units : • 22.76% of cited documents are without author • 37.35% of documents are cited just once • 39.99% of documents are cited more then once

  8. Data about cited documents • Cited half-life of all documents is 7.5 years. Certain differences exist according to: • The type of cited documents • Monographs: 9,1 • Journals:7,2 • Semi-publications: 9,3 • Disciplines • Information systems: 5,9 • Information science: 7,1 • Librarianship: 7,8 • Communicology: 8,5 • Archivistics and documentation : 8,6 • Museology: 12,6

  9. Constants in Scientific Communication • we determined existence of constant in scientific communication models • according to the citation frequency • according to the age of cited literature

  10. Distribution of citation • The pattern is the following: • until cited half-life (t/2) 50% of documents are cited • until half of cited half-life (t/4) 25% of documents are cited • maximum frequency from overall number of cited documents. • In the second time period of cited half-life (t), following 30% of documents are cited • After double cited half-life, 20% of documents for which age cannot be predicted are being cited.

  11. Differences in Communications Models • Based on previously described regularity we could identify three communication zones based on the nature of citation usage: • empirical knowledge zone • research front zone • conceptual knowledge zone

  12. Empirical Knowledge Zone • This zone consists of citations(of authors and documents) that are cited only once • holds 60% of citations • is equally distributed and presented during entire communication process • linearcommunication

  13. Research Front Zone • In research front zonet/4, first 25% of authors and documents are cited • maximum frequency of overall document’s citation is reached • understanding of the problem and • communication with everyone in their surroundings relevant for the problem. • bidirectional communications • in which empirical and conceptual knowledge are being overlapped, compressed and reinterpreted

  14. Conceptual Knowledge Zone • The most cited authors are in this zone • They define scientific paradigm that binds members of certain communication community • The age of cited literature is older than citation half-live • linearcommunication

  15. Authors alterations in conceptual knowledge zone

  16. Authors alterations in conceptual knowledge zone • In the analyzed range of 30 years, only 22 authors out of 45 of the most cited authors are cited in all three periods. • Out of the 45 most cited authors: • In the period from 1978 to 1989: 31 authors are cited • In the period from 1990 to 1999: 44 authors are cited • In the period from 2000 to 2007: 39 authors are cited

  17. Authors alterations in conceptual knowledge zone • From 1978 to 1989 - 31 out of 45 authors are cited. • 14 authors are not cited, some of whom are among the most cited authors in following periods: • e.g. P. Klasinc, I. Maroević, J. Lasić-Lazić, V. Žiljak, N. Prelog • From 1990 to 1999 - 44 out of 45 most cited authors are cited.

  18. Authors alterations in conceptual knowledge zone • From 2000 to 2007 - 34 authors are cited. • 11 authors, some of whom are the founders of Information Science, such as: • J. Martin, J. Shera, B. C. Brookes, A. Bauer, A. I. Mihailov, B. Težak, D. J. Foskett, S. Dobrenić

  19. Researchers, Scholars and Predecessors

  20. Authors alterations inknowledge zones • Authors’ space and placement in any knowledge zone are neither constant nor lasting • According to the placement in knowledge zone we recognized: • Researchers, • Scholars and • Predecessors

  21. Predecessors’ time • authors whose cited publications areolder than double cited half-life (older than 15years) • authors inthe time of predecessors: are highly relevant for thedevelopment of Information Science • group of authors that belong to predecessors • not the same from one period to the next (in spite of the fact that there is often overlapping)

  22. Predecessors’ time • Predecessors according to periods: • 1978-1989: E. Garfield, A. Bauer, F. W. Lancaster, Z. Z. Stranski, E. Verona, S. Lubetzky, B. C. Vickery, D. de S. Price. • 1990-1999: E. Verona, D. de S. Price, J. H. Shera, S. Lubetzky, A. Bauer, B. C. Vickery, E. Garfield, etc. • 2000-2007: S. Lubetzky, D. de S. Price, Z. Z. Stranski, E. Verona, etc.

  23. Time of researchers • authors whose publications are not older than cited half-life (in our corpus a half-life of citation obsolescence is 7.5 years) • maximum frequency of citation is reached

  24. Time of scholars • On time scale between time of researchers and time of predecessors, which is between citation half-life and life of literature’s obsolescence, it is positioned third group of authors, which we named scholars • Author alters his/her role from researchers to thescholars to the predecessors

  25. Authors cited through three periods according to the average age of cited literature in a certain period:

  26. Conclusion • Three zones are permanently present: • empirical knowledge zone • conceptual knowledge zone, and • research knowledge zone • we identify three groups of authors in three knowledge zones: • predecessors • scholars • researchers

  27. Conclusion • we identify three groups of authors in the conceptual knowledge zone • we identifyregularities • i.e. why some authors can occur in a certain group, but not necessarily in all groups that we identified in this analysis

  28. Conclusion • Based on the empirical data it can be concluded that the influence of certain authors from researchers via scholars to predecessors does not depend on the publication obsolescence time, but on a sequence of factors that were not the topic of our analysis.

  29. Conclusion • This paper shows by qualitative indicators the alterations of authors and their role in scientific communication. • Only qualitative analysis of the publications of most cited authors would prove our hypothesis completely.

  30. Conclusion • we believe in Kuhn’s hypothesis about scientific paradigms that “incomers” suppress “old” authors, regardless of whether they work on old scientific problems in a new way or deal with new problems

  31. Thank you • Questions?