Abstract
Bibliographic information systems have to address the needs of users by providing “value-added-components.” For instance, users would benefit from knowing the social and cognitive structures of research fields. Research suggests that a relationship exists between actors' position in scientific networks and the innovativeness of themes they examine. The present study confirms and expands these results through a technique that relates the cognitive and social structures of a research field (socio-cognitive analysis). The results from two social science fields suggest that well-integrated actors are engaged in the consolidation of the mainstream, whereas new ideas are most likely to be introduced and pursued by social climbers, i.e., actors who are starting to form a social network of collaboration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
1._ P. Mutschke, Processing scientific networks in bibliographic databases, In: H. H. Bock et al. (Eds), Information Systems and Data Analysis, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the GfKl 1993, Springer Verlag, 1994, pp. 126-132.
K. M. Carley, N. P. Hummon, M. Harty, Scientific influence: An analysis of the main path structure in the Journal of Conflict Resolution,Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14 (1993) 417-447.
K. M. Carley, Structural constraints on communication: The diffusion of the homomorphic signal analysis technique through scientific fields, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15 (1990) 207-246.
J. Scott, Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, Sage Publications, London, UK, 1991.
S. Wasserman, K. Faust, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, NY, 1994.
B. Wellman, Network analysis: Some basic principles, In: R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological Theory, Jossey-Bass, (1983), pp. 155-200.
L. Freeman, Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification, Social Networks, 1 (1979) 215-239.
D. Crane, Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972.
D. Crane, Social structure of a group of scientists: A test of the 'Invisible College' hypothesis, American Sociological Review, 34 (1969) 335-352.
J. S. Coleman, E. Katz, H. Menzel, Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study, Bobbs Merrill, New York, 1966.
E. Katz, The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on a hypothesis, Public Opinion Quarterly, 21 (1957) 61-78.
E. M. Rogers, F. F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach, Free Press, New York, 1971.
M. Callon, J. P. Courtial, F. Laville, Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry, Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 155-205.
M. Callon, J. P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, S. Bauin, From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis, Social Science Information, 22 (1983) 191-235.
M. Hesse, Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press, London, 1980.
P. Mutschke, I. Renner, Akteure und Themen im Gewaltdiskurs: Eine Strukturanalyse der Forschungslandschaft, In: E. Mochmann, U. Gerhardt (Eds), Gewalt in Deutschland: Soziale Befunde und Deutungslinien, Oldenburg Verlag, 1995, pp. 147-192.
L. Leydesdorff, Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences, Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 48 (1997) 418-427.
B. Heintz, Wissenschaft im Kontext: Neuere Entwicklungen in der Wissenschaftssoziologie, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 45 (1993) 528-552.
I. Renner, Gewalt in der Gesellschaft: Zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Konstruktion des Phänomens, Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, Jahresbericht, Bonn., 1995.
L. Grivel, P. Mutschke, X. Polanco, Thematic mapping on bibliographic databases by cluster analysis: A description of the SDOC environment with SOLIS, Knowledge Organisation, 22 (1995) 70-77.
I. Renner, Soziale Kohärenz und Innovatität: Struktureffekte zur Akzpetanz neuer Themen in sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschungsfeldern, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 49 (1997) 74-97.
J. S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
E. M. Rogers, Network analysis of the diffusion of innovations, In: D. Lerner et al. (Eds), Communication Research — a Half Century Appraisal, East West Center, 1977, pp. 137-164.
T. W. Valente, Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations, Hampton Press, Inc., Cresskill, 1995.
H. Menzel, Innovation, integration, and marginality: A survey of physicians, American Sociological Review, 25 (1960) 704-713.
B. Krause, P. Metzler, Angewandte Statistik, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1988.
K. M. Van Meter; W. A. Turner, Cognitive mapping: The German FORIS database and Sociological Abstracts' AIDS research. In: H. Best et al. (Eds), Informations-und Wissensverarbeitung in den Sozialwissenschaften. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, 1994, pp. 257-274.
L. Leydesdorff, A validation study of “Leximappe”, Scientometrics, 25 (1992) 295-312.
B. Everett, Cluster Analysis, Social Science Research Council, Heinemann, London, etc., 1974.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mutschke, P., Haase, A.Q. Collaboration and Cognitive Structures in Social Science Research Fields. Towards Socio-Cognitive Analysis in Information Systems. Scientometrics 52, 487–502 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014256102041
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014256102041