Co‐citation analysis and the invisible college

Noma, Elliot

doi:10.1002/asi.4630350105

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A fundamental difference, however, is that centroid scaling methods are typically not concerned with interpreting only the largest coordinates in the representations they produce; rather, the goal is to infer a notion of similarity among a set of objects by geometric means. Centroid scaling has been applied to citation data by Noma [43], for jointly clustering citing and cited documents. In the context of information retrieval, the Latent Semantic Indexing methodology of Deerwester et al [16] applied a centroid scaling approach to a vectorspace model of documents [48,49]; this allowed them to represent terms and documents in a common low-dimensional space, in which natural geometrically defined clusters often separate multiple senses of a query term.…”

Section: Clustering Of Link Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment

Kleinberg¹

2011

The Structure and Dynamics of Networks

1,435

2,017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The network structure of a hyperlinked environment can be a rich source of information about the content of the environment, provided we have effective means for understanding it. We develop a set of algorithmic tools for extracting information from the link structures of such environments, and report on experiments that demonstrate their effectiveness in a variety of contexts on the World Wide Web. The central issue we address within our framework is the distillation of broad search topics, through the discovery of "authoritative" information sources on such topics. We propose and test an algorithmic formulation of the notion of authority, based on the relationship between a set of relevant authoritative pages and the set of "hub pages" that join them together in the link structure. Our formulation has connections to the eigenvectors of certain matrices associated with the link graph; these connections in turn motivate additional heuristics for link-based analysis.

show abstract

Section: Clustering Of Link Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment

Kleinberg¹

2011

The Structure and Dynamics of Networks

1,435

2,017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This tool maps the structure of a research field through pairs of documents that are commonly cited together (Coulter et al, 1998). Co-citation has been used in the literature to delimit research areas (Small, 2006), discover knowledge communities (Kandylas et al, 2010), research fronts (Upham & Small, 2010) and invisible colleges (Noma, 1984), and also to study different research fields such as the absorptive capacity field (CaleroMedina & Noyons, 2008), the organic thin film transistors (Small & Upham, 2009), to analyze the Strategic Management Journal (Ramos-Rodrguez & Ruz-Navarro, 2004) or to study the marrow of science (Moya-Anegón et al, 2007), among other applications.…”

Section: Science Mapping and Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field

Cobo

López-Herrera

Liu

et al. 2011

Journal of Informetrics

1,661

1,256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The more predominant bibliometric method-cocitation analysis (Noma, 1984;Small, 1979Small, , 1980-was not employed for two reasons. First, using counts of citation pairs (i.e., counts of how many times particular pairs of individuals are cited in the same article) limits one's ability to make and use theory-group classifications in the analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict, Incommensurability, and Theory Groups

Roelfs

2011

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the now classic model of scientific change, Kuhn (1962) argued that the accumulation of discrepant empirical results creates the potential for a shift in the underlying epistemological structure (i.e., triggers a scientific revolution at the metatheoretical level; see also Cole, 1992). Building on this idea, Mullins and Mullins (1973) proposed that groups of theories (aka schools of thought) within an academic field are regularly replaced by new theory groups through a similar mechanism. The regular ascension of new theory groups is akin to a disciplinary revolution at the theory level.However, the interdisciplinary field known as organization studies has long existed in a state of theory-group multiplicity. The theory groups most influential today-New Insti tutional Sociology (NIS), Organizational Ecology (OE), Resource Dependency Theory (RD), and Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)-are largely the same as in the early 1980s. Although theory proliferation has been a topic of interest in organization studies over this entire period, new theory groups do not seem to have emerged to replace the old. Furthermore, no single theory group has clearly risen to preeminence and the existing theory groups seem locked in with each other. The late 1980s were commonly characterized as a time of "paradigm war" in organization studies. (It should be noted that the label "paradigm war" is somewhat of a misnomer as contestation between theory groups is perhaps the more accurate description because conflicts such as this one are not Kuhnian struggles between metatheories.) This period of direct theory-group contestation developed into a prolonged debate over theory incommensurability in the middle to late 1990s. The major theory groups, although at times somewhat distanced from the mostheated parts of these debates, have nonetheless played a significant role in it.Ten years have now passed since the height of this incommensurability debate. In this time, has intertheory-group interaction become less confrontational? Is there now movement, as Mullins and Mullins' (1973) model of theory-group development suggests, back toward synthesis, the transcendence of existing theory groups, and the development of new ones? What effects, if any, did the prolonged period of theory-group conflict have? AbstractMuch is already known about how theory groups-schools of thought centered on the influential works of a small number of scholars-emerge. Yet, little is known about how prolonged periods of conflict between theory groups affects the theory-group life cycle. The author presents a review of critiques and exchanges published by scholars in the organizationenvironment subfield, and shows that these can be used to identify "emergence," "conflict," and "postconflict" periods. Poisson and negative binomial regression analyses of 656 publications show that the frequency of intertheory-group citations decreased following the conflict period (1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994). Linear regression models show that, when interth...

show abstract

Co‐citation analysis and the invisible college

Cited by 38 publications

References 14 publications

Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment

Authoritative Sources in a Hyperlinked Environment

An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field

Conflict, Incommensurability, and Theory Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About