A longitudinal study of intellectual cohesion in digital humanities using bibliometric analyses

As digital humanities continues to expand and become more inclusive, little is known about the extent to which its knowledge is integrated. A bibliometric analysis of published literature in digital humanities was conducted to examine the degree of its intellectual cohesion over time (1989–2014). Co-authorship, article co-citation, and bibliographic coupling networks were generated so SNA based cohesion analysis can be applied. Modularity maximization partition was also performed to both co-citation and “author bibliographic coupling” networks to identify main research interests manifested in the literature. The results show that, as publications in digital humanities continue to grow, its diversity and coherence, two hallmarks of interdisciplinarity, have shown signs of becoming more robust. The co-author network, however, remained rather fragmented, with collaboration mainly limited by language and geographic boundaries. The domain specific practices in digital humanities that might contribute to such fragmentation was discussed.

[1]  Peng Liu,et al.  Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field , 2014, Scientometrics.

[2]  Anton J. Nederhof,et al.  Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review , 2006, Scientometrics.

[3]  Brian Carolan,et al.  The structure of educational research: The role of multivocality in promoting cohesion in an article interlock network , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[4]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview , 1990, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  Scott A. Huettel,et al.  Translating upwards: linking the neural and social sciences via neuroeconomics , 2012, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  W. McCarty.  Humanities Computing: Essential Problems, Experimental Practice , 2002, Lit. Linguistic Comput..

[7]  Fredrik Åström,et al.  Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990-2004 , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Neha Gondal,et al.  The local and global structure of knowledge production in an emergent research field: An exponential random graph analysis , 2011, Soc. Networks.

[9]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[10]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity , 2007, Scientometrics.

[11]  A. Stirling.  A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[12]  E. Hildt,et al.  Neuroethics 1995–2012. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Guiding Themes of an Emerging Research Field , 2016, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus "Digital Humanities" as a topic , 2009, ArXiv.

[14]  Daniel A. McFarland,et al.  Streams of Thought: Knowledge Flows and Intellectual Cohesion in a Multidisciplinary Era , 2015 .

[15]  Fredrik Åström.  Changes in the LIS research front: Time-sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004 , 2007 .

[16]  D. R. White,et al.  Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups , 2003 .

[17]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? , 2010 .

[18]  E. C. Lagemann.  The Plural Worlds of Educational Research , 1989, History of Education Quarterly.

[19]  Jenny Fry,et al.  Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[20]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995 , 1998 .

[21]  Sharon L. Milgram,et al.  The Small World Problem , 1967 .

[22]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[23]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[24]  Francisco J. Acedo,et al.  Co-Authorship in Management and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis , 2006 .

[25]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , 2009, Scientometrics.

[26]  María Bordons,et al.  Analysis of Cross-Disciplinary Research Through Bibliometric Tools , 2004 .

[27]  Patrik Svensson,et al.  The Landscape of Digital Humanities , 2010, Digit. Humanit. Q..

[28]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community , 2005, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Ying Ding,et al.  Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  Francisco J. Acedo,et al.  The resource based theory: dissemination and main trends , 2006 .

[32]  Katherine W. McCain,et al.  Neural networks research in context: A longitudinal journal cocitation analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field , 1998, Scientometrics.

[33]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996-2005: Introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[34]  Betsy Van der Veer Martens,et al.  Mapping research specialties , 2008, Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[36]  J. Moody.  The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[37]  稲葉 光行,et al.  Analyzing Structures and Evolution of Digital Humanities Based on Correspondence Analysis and Co-word Analysis , 2009 .

[38]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  What sort of community is the European Conference on Information Systems? A social network analysis 1993–2005 , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Welcome to the linguistic warp zone: Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities , 2005 .

[40]  D. Watts.  Networks, Dynamics, and the Small‐World Phenomenon1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[41]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature , 2011, J. Informetrics.