Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012. OR HOW TO DETERMINE ....
Scientists as cited authors. • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …)
...
LINKING STRUCTURALISM WITH QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES OR HOW TO DETERMINE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES?
Tilmann Massey
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
Overview
1) Socio-historical enrichment of scientific theories
2) Network identification in bibliometrics
3) Bibliometrics and philosophy of science
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
2
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
T. Kuhn (Postscript to ‘Structure’, 1969) Scientific Community (SC): Practitioners of a scientific speciality sharing a disciplinary matrix (“paradigm” s. l.) Disciplinary matrix: Constellation of group commitments regarding 1. 2. 3. 4.
Symbolic generalizations Metaphysics Values Exemplars (“paradigm” s. s.): problem-solutions in textbooks
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
3
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
T. Kuhn (Postscript to ‘Structure’, 1969) Scientific Community (SC): Practitioners of a scientific speciality sharing a disciplinary matrix (“paradigm” s. l.) Disciplinary matrix: Constellation of group commitments regarding 1. 2. 3. 4.
Symbolic generalizations Metaphysics Values Exemplars (“paradigm” s. s.): problem-solutions in textbooks
“A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who share a paradigm.” ⇒ Strong conceptual tie between paradigms and SCs Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
4
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
T. Kuhn (Postscript to ‘Structure’, 1969) “Not all circularities are vicious […], but this one is a source of real difficulties. Scientific communities can and should be isolated without prior recourse to paradigms.” ⇒ Identification: primacy on SCs! For the purpose of community identification one must have recourse “above all to formal and informal communication networks including those discovered in correspondence and in the linkages among citations.” ⇒ Citation of early works on bibliometrics (Garfield, Price and Kessler)
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
5
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
T. Kuhn (Postscript to ‘Structure’, 1969) “Not all circularities are vicious […], but this one is a source of real difficulties. Scientific communities can and should be isolated without prior recourse to paradigms.” ⇒ Identification: primacy on SCs! For the purpose of community identification one must have recourse “above all to formal and informal communication networks including those discovered in correspondence and in the linkages among citations.” ⇒ Citation of early works on bibliometrics (Garfield, Price and Kessler)
Can bibliometrics provide “neutral” identification of Kuhnian SCs?
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
6
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
Socio-historically enriched structuralism • Stegmüller 1973, 1976; Moulines 1979, 1991a, 1991b; Balzer et al. 1987 (Ch. 5) • Scientific Communities as diachronic entities: SC
t
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
7
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
Socio-historically enriched structuralism • Ki+1 *σ Ki (so esp. Mpi+1= Mpi) • Ii+1 ∩ Ii ≠ ∅ SC
〈K 1 , I 1 〉
〈K 2 , I 2 〉
〈K 3 , I 3 〉
t
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
8
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
Socio-historically enriched structuralism • Historical period h, historical precedence relation ( ⋖ ) • Generation function: g(hi, SC) = Gi G1
G2
G3
〈K 1 , I 1 〉
〈K 2 , I 2 〉
〈K 3 , I 3 〉
h1
⋖
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
h2
⋖
h3
t
9
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
Socio-historically enriched structuralism • Diachronic theory-element: T = ⟨ K , I , G ⟩
“G intends to apply K to I” • K is taken to be formally identifiable, but “pragmatic” determination of I and G • It is not clear whether I or G is primary (see Moulines 1991)
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
10
1 Socio-historical enrichment of scienctific theories
Socio-historically enriched structuralism • Diachronic theory-element: T = ⟨ K , I , G ⟩
“G intends to apply K to I” • K is taken to be formally identifiable, but “pragmatic” determination of I and G • It is not clear whether I or G is primary (see Moulines 1991) • Architectonic p. 214 “The means used to construct g for a given SC should be the ones admissible for the study of the history of ideas: direct or indirect quotation analysis, influence analysis, etc.”
Can bibliometrics provide a method to determine G?
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
11
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Bibliometric Methods Often:
evaluation
But also:
network identification
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
12
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Bibliometric Methods Often:
evaluation
But also:
network identification
Mapping of relationships based on co-occurrence of some items: • References (bibliographic coupling) • Words (keywords, title words, abstract) • Authors (author co-citation analysis, ACA) Basic idea: The more any two items are referred to together, the more intense is the relationship between them. Databases:
Web of Science (SCI, SSCI, AHCI), Scopus, Google Scholar, custom-made
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
13
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Standard procedure of ACA After McCain 1990, de Bellis 2009: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Specify the authors and the time period Collect raw co-citation data, produce matrix Normalize matrix (Pearson correlation coefficients) Analyze matrix (multi dimensional scaling and clustering algorithms) Visualize the result Interpret the result
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
14
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Multidimensional Scaling Atl Atl Chi Den Hou LA Mia NYC SF Sea WDC
0 587 1212 701 1936 604 748 2139 2182 543
Chi 587 0 920 940 1745 1188 713 1858 1737 597
Den 1212 920 0 879 831 1726 1631 949 1021 1494
Hou 701 940 879 0 1374 968 1420 1645 1891 1220
LA 1936 1745 831 1374 0 2339 2451 347 959 2300
Mia 604 1188 1726 968 2339 0 1092 2594 2734 923
NYC 748 713 1631 1420 2451 1092 0 2571 2408 205
SF 2139 1858 949 1645 347 2594 2571 0 678 2442
Sea 2182 1737 1021 1891 959 2734 2408 678 0 2329
WDC 543 597 1494 1220 2300 923 205 2442 2329 0
? Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
15
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Multidimensional Scaling Atl Atl Chi Den Hou LA Mia NYC SF Sea WDC
0 587 1212 701 1936 604 748 2139 2182 543
Chi 587 0 920 940 1745 1188 713 1858 1737 597
Den 1212 920 0 879 831 1726 1631 949 1021 1494
Hou 701 940 879 0 1374 968 1420 1645 1891 1220
LA 1936 1745 831 1374 0 2339 2451 347 959 2300
Mia 604 1188 1726 968 2339 0 1092 2594 2734 923
NYC 748 713 1631 1420 2451 1092 0 2571 2408 205
SF 2139 1858 949 1645 347 2594 2571 0 678 2442
Sea 2182 1737 1021 1891 959 2734 2408 678 0 2329
WDC 543 597 1494 1220 2300 923 205 2442 2329 0
Source: MathWorks Documentation
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
16
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Multidimensional Scaling Atl Atl Chi Den Hou LA Mia NYC SF Sea WDC
0 587 1212 701 1936 604 748 2139 2182 543
Chi 587 0 920 940 1745 1188 713 1858 1737 597
Den 1212 920 0 879 831 1726 1631 949 1021 1494
Hou 701 940 879 0 1374 968 1420 1645 1891 1220
LA 1936 1745 831 1374 0 2339 2451 347 959 2300
Mia 604 1188 1726 968 2339 0 1092 2594 2734 923
NYC 748 713 1631 1420 2451 1092 0 2571 2408 205
SF 2139 1858 949 1645 347 2594 2571 0 678 2442
Sea 2182 1737 1021 1891 959 2734 2408 678 0 2329
WDC 543 597 1494 1220 2300 923 205 2442 2329 0
Source: MathWorks Documentation
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
17
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Example 1 Kreuzman 2001: Epistemologists and Philosophers of Science (1980-1993)
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
18
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Example 1 Kreuzman 2001: Epistemologists and Philosophers of Science (1980-1993)
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
19
2 Network identification in bibliometrics
Example 2 van Eck et al. 2010: Information Science (1999-2008)
• • • •
One journal as starting point (JASIST) 36 “most related” journals (using co-citation data!) All articles with at least 4 citations All authors with at least 3 of those articles Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
405 authors
20
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Problems • Bibliometric methods are not „neutral“ ⇒ But still a refinement procedure
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
21
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Problems • Bibliometric methods are not „neutral“ ⇒ But still a refinement procedure • Spatial representation … of what? 1.
Networks of authors
2.
a) Scientific communities, invisible colleges b) Specialities, disciplines
3.
a) Sociocognitive structure, paradigms b) Domains, fields, foci of intellectual interest
4.
Intellectual structure
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
22
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …)
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
23
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …) ⇒ Do co-cited authors necessarily share a theory-core?
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
24
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …) ⇒ Do co-cited authors necessarily share a theory-core?
• No! Rivals are cited frequently by third parties or even by themselves
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
25
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …) ⇒ Do co-cited authors necessarily share a theory-core?
• No! Rivals are cited frequently by third parties or even by themselves ⇒ What do co-citees share?
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
26
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …) ⇒ Do co-cited authors necessarily share a theory-core?
• No! Rivals are cited frequently by third parties or even by themselves ⇒ What do co-citees share? In Kuhnian terms:
≈ subject matter
In structuralist terms:
≈ intended applications
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
27
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
The co-citation relation • G consists of scientists: Scientists as cited authors • Ok! (But: plagiarism, Bourbaki, pure self-citation, …) ⇒ Do co-cited authors necessarily share a theory-core?
• No! Rivals are cited frequently by third parties or even by themselves ⇒ What do co-citees share? In Kuhnian terms:
≈ subject matter
In structuralist terms:
≈ intended applications
⇒ Definition of G in terms of I? Not in its original (Kuhnian) sense! ⇒ Social component? Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
28
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Strategies • Use of different bibliometrics methods ⇒ e.g. co-authorship networks
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
29
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Strategies • Use of different bibliometrics methods ⇒ e.g. co-authorship networks
• Introduction of new meta-theoretical concepts ⇒ e.g communities of scientific interest (IC) This includes methods! “synchronic generation function”: gs(Ki, IC) = GKi
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
30
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Why bother? • Full identification of theories • Complex historical cases with indispensable socio-pragmatic components ⇒ Exp.: Formation of the “modern synthesis” of evolution • Emendment of meta-theories of science ⇒ Eventually: meta-theories of science with adapted conceptual basis • Emendment of bibliometric methods • Science policy
Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
31
3 Bibliometry and philosophy of science
Why bother? • Full identification of theories • Complex historical cases with indispensable socio-pragmatic components ⇒ Exp.: Formation of the “modern synthesis” of evolution • Emendment of meta-theories of science ⇒ Eventually: meta-theories of science with adapted conceptual basis • Emendment of bibliometric methods • Science policy
Thank you for your attention! Perspectives on Structuralism – Munich 2012
32
