Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies

Introduction to the topical issue

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This issue ofScientometrics originated from a Workshop of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). In this introduction the relations between qualitative theory and the use of scientometric methods is placed in the historical perspective of the emergence of science and technology studies over the last decades. The differences among various theories in terms of dimensions, units of analysis and levels of aggregation are elaborated. Thereafter, the various contributions to the issue are discussed within this framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. B. C. GRIFFITH, H. D. WHITE, Authors as markers of intellectual space: Cocitation in studies of science, technology and society,Journal of Documentation, 38, No. 4 (1983) 255.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. SPIEGEL-RÖSING, D. De SOLLA PRICE (Eds),Science, Technology and Society. A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, Sage, London and Beverly Hills, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. De SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T. S. KUHN,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, 1962.

  5. D. CRANE, Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the “Invisible College” Hypothesis,American Sociological Review, 34 No. 3 (1969) 335; B. C. GRIFFITH, N. C. MULLINS, Coherent social groups in scientific change,Science. 177 (15 September 1972) 52; J. R. COLE, S. COLE,Social Stratification in Science, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. SMALL, B. GRIFFITH, The structure of the scientific literature I,Science Studies, 4 (1974) 17.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. C. MULLINS, L. L. HARGENS, P. K. HECHT, E. L. KICK, Group structure of cocitation clusters: A comparative study,American Sociological Review 42 (1977) 552; K. E. STUDER, D. E. CHUBIN,The Cancer Mission, Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage, Beverly Hills/London, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. NARIN,Evaluative Bibliometrics, CHI Research, Computer Horizons Inc., Cherry Hill, N. J., 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, for example, the contribution of T. LUUKKONEN to this volume. See also: H. F. MOED, W. J. M. BURGER, J. G. FRANKFORT, A. F. J. Van RAAN,On the Measurement of Research Performance: the Use of Bibliometric Indicators, Research Policy Unit, University of Leiden, Leiden 1983; A. F. J. Van RAAN (ED.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. COZZENS, Taking the measure of science: A review of citation theories,Newsletter of the International Society for the Sociology of Knowledge, 7 (1981, May) 16; S. COZZENS, ‘What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model’, this volume. See also: L. LEYDESDORFF, Toward a theory of citation,Scientometrics, 12 (1987) 305.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. SMALL, E. SWEENEY, E. GREENLEE, Clustering the Science Citation Index using co-citations II. Mapping science,Scientometrics, 8 (1985) 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. KNORR-CETINA,The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. C. PELZ, F. M. ANDREWS,Scientists in Organizations, Productive Climates for Research and Development, Wiley, New York, 1966, See also: K. D. KNORR, R. MITTERMEIER, Publication and professional position: Crossnational evidence on the role of organizations,Scientometrics, 2 (1980) 95.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. B. BARNES, R. G. A. DOLBY, The scientific ethos: A deviant viewpoint,Archives européennes de sociologie, 11 (1970) 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. BLOOR,Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London/Boston, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. D. KNORR-CETINA, M. J. MULKAY,Science Observed, Sage, London, 1983; B. LATOUR, S. WOOLGAR,Laboratory Life, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  17. H. M. COLLINS, The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science,Annual Review of Sociology, 9 (1983) 265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. K. KNORR-CETINA,The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergomon Press, Oxford/New York, 1981; B. LATOUR,Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. D. WHITLEY,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See, for example: T. PINCH, Towards an analysis of scientific observation: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  21. S. E. COZZENS (Ed.), Funding and knowledge growth, Theme issue,Social Studies of Science, 16 (1986) 3–150; L. LEYDESDORFF, P. Van der SCHAAR, The use of scientometric methods for evaluating national research programs,Science & Technology Studies, 5 (1987) 22–31.

  22. I. SPIEGEL-RÖSING,Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Wissenschaftssteuerung, Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt a. M., 1973, pp. 106–131; G. KÜPPERS, P. LUNDGREEN, P. WEINGART, Umweltprogramm und Umweltforschung, in: W. Van den DAELE e.a. (Eds),Geplante Forschung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  23. K. E. STUDER, D. E. CHUBIN,The Cancer Mission. Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Sage Beverly Hills/London, 1980. pp. 269; L. LEYDESDORFF, The Development of frames of references,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 103–125.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. the ‘credibility circle’ in: B. LATOUR, S. WOOLGAR,Laboratory Life, Sage, Beverly Hills etc., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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) 199.; M. CALLON, J. LAW, A. RIP (Eds),Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, MacMillan, Houndmills, etc., 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. M. COLLINS, The possibilites of science policy,Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985) 554.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. HESSE,Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press, London, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. S. BURT, Network data from archival records, in: R. S. BURT, M. J. MINOR (Eds),Applied Network Analysis, Beverly Hills, etc.: Sage, 1983, p. 170 f.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. D. WHITLEY, 1984.Op. cit., note 19.

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. HESSE, 1980.Op.cit., note 27.

    Google Scholar 

  31. The term ‘unit of event’ was suggested to me byFrederyck L. Holmes, who argues that the working day should be taken as signifant unit of event for the reconstruction of the life and work ofHans Krebs.

  32. M. E. LESK, Word-word associations in document retrieval systems,American Documentation, 20 (1969) 27; G. SALTON, M. J. McGILL,Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, Auckland, etc., 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  33. T. WINOGRAD,Understanding Natural Language, Academic Press, New York, 1972; Y. IJIRI, H. A. SIMON,Skew Distributions and the Sizes of Business Firms. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1977; Y.-S. CHEN,Statistical Models of Text: A System Theory Approach, Ph. D. Thesis, Purdue Univesity, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  34. L. LEYDESDORFF, The development of frames of references,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 103; L. LEYDESDORFF, Various methods for the mapping of science,Scientometrics, 11 (1987) 295.–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. E. ROSKAM, J. C. LINGOES,Minissa-I, June 1974.

  36. Because of the choice for theSocial Science Citation Index theCzech Journal of Physics is unfortunately excluded from the analysis.Minerva had to be excluded from the analysis since no ‘citing’ data for this journal are yet available in 1986.

  37. See for the discussion of citing verus cited patterns: LEYDESDORFF, 1986.Op. cit., note 23..

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe A chtergracht 166, 1018 WV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    L. Leydesdorff

Authors
  1. L. Leydesdorff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leydesdorff, L. The relations between qualitative theory and scientometric methods in science and technology studies. Scientometrics 15, 333–347 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017058

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017058

Keywords

Search

Navigation