Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative models, quantitative tools and network analysis

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One model for knowledge development is the network interaction model. Insofar as socio-technical networks may have some structural properties, does knowledge development reflect this? The hypothesis that it does may enable us to make some forecasts of science development from a description of the state of a field. One condition necessary for testing this hypothesis is that of adopting a model for these networks. Co-word analysis is such a tool. It gives us key-words networks derived from scientific and technical texts. The author checks for network properties in the area of knowledge development through a case study of Polymer Science and Technology from 1973 to 1978.

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. D. De SOLLA PRICE,The Citation Cycle in Key Papers in Information Science, B. C. GRIFFITH (Ed.) Knowledge Industry Publications, White Plains, NY, 1980, p. 185–210.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. J. ABERNATHY, K. B. CLARK, Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction,Research Policy, 14 (1985) No. 1, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. R. BURT, Social contagion and innovation Cohesion versus structural equivalence,American Journal of Sociology, 92 (1987, May) 1287–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. CALLON, J. LAW, A. RIP,Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, Macmillan, London, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. LATOUR,Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. CHARTRON,Introduction aux programmes, Lexinet, SERPIA CDST/CNRS, 26 Rue Boyer, 75020 Paris, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. RIP, “Art and Artifact in the Representations of Scientific Fields”, EASST Workshop, Amsterdam, 10–11 déc., 1987.

  8. G. KUPPERS, W. KROHN, Science as a self-organized system. A new approach to the dynamics of scientific theory, 4S Meeting, Worcester (Ma.), Nov 19–22, 1987.

  9. J. FUJIMURA, Bandwagons in Science, 4S Meeting, Worcester (Ma.), Nov. 19–22, 1987.

  10. Grant PRA 8512982. A complete report with more results on the same topic will be available in June 1988.

  11. W. TURNER et al.,Packaging Information for Peer Review, Handbook for the Quantitative Studies in Science and Technology, T. V. RAAN (Ed.), North Holland P., 1988. (forthcoming)

  12. S. BAUIN, B. MICHELET,Comprendre la Réaction Chimique, CDST/CNRS, 26 rue Boyer, 75971 Paris Cedex 20, 1987. See also ref. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. ZELDENRUST, “Trends in Dutch and Polymer Science”, Wetenschapsdynamica, Universiteit von Amsterdam, Neuewe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, 1987.

  14. For a complete definition of dependant cross-road clusters, see report in reference 10.

  15. B. MICHELET,L'analyse des associations, Thèse de Doctorat, SERPIA CDST/CNRS, 1987, 26 rue Boyer, 75020 Paris, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole des Mines de Paris, Centre de Sociologie, 62 bd. Saint-Michel, 75006, Paris, France

    J. P. Courtial

Authors
  1. J. P. Courtial
    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

Courtial, J.P. Qualitative models, quantitative tools and network analysis. Scientometrics 15, 527–534 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017069

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017069

Keywords

Search

Navigation