Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Knowledge codification and abstraction.
Scientometric approaches

2-12-2010, KIMO
Eva Ortoll / Àlex Lopez
Context and Objetives
Based on the I-Space theoretical framework, we try to explain the
knowledge codification and abstrac...
Research Questions
Rq1: How codified is the knowledge in a scientific
discipline?
Rq2: How abstract is the knowledge in a ...
Data gathering
We will work with the ISI database (in this sense we would
retrieved the complete register of an article in...
Initial approach: Mapping Knowledge Domains
“Knowledge mapping is locating a knowledge item (a node in a
scalable network)...
Science mapping can be done at several levels of granularity:
disciplines (information science), research fields (science ...
We propose to work with the smallest unit of analysis, the “research
topic” as an expression of a “knowledge item” within ...
Approaches

Main idea

Bibliographic coupling
(Kessler, 1963)

links documents that
reference the same
set of cited
refere...
From Boyack; K; Klavans, R. JASIST 2010
Approaches

Main idea

Field to field citations *
(Buter et al 2010)

Citations form one scientific
field to another are u...
How could we measure the degree of codification and abstraction?
Degree

CODIFICATION

ABSTRACTION* (II): by citations ana...
How could we measure the degree of codification and abstraction?
Degree

CODIFICATION

ABSTRACTION* (I): by topic relation...
Our proposal
We’ll use, as a first step, the co-word co-occurrence technique
using title and abstract text of ISI records....
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Knowledge codification and abstraction

234

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
234
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Knowledge codification and abstraction"

  1. 1. Knowledge codification and abstraction. Scientometric approaches 2-12-2010, KIMO Eva Ortoll / Àlex Lopez
  2. 2. Context and Objetives Based on the I-Space theoretical framework, we try to explain the knowledge codification and abstraction of a specific research discipline by scientometric techniques, the idea is to gain knowledge in the use of these techniques to apply them to the ATLAS project (in its documents, databases, etc) at CERN. The objective is to obtain an objective way to measure knowledge codification and abstraction at ATLAS experiment, completing and comparing the results with those obtained with the interviews.
  3. 3. Research Questions Rq1: How codified is the knowledge in a scientific discipline? Rq2: How abstract is the knowledge in a scientific discipline? Rq3: How we can explain knowledge creation and diffusion in a scientific discipline?
  4. 4. Data gathering We will work with the ISI database (in this sense we would retrieved the complete register of an article in terms of: authors, title, abstract, source, references, etc) We have decided to choose three disciplines to apply the techniques: Physics, Management and Information Science
  5. 5. Initial approach: Mapping Knowledge Domains “Knowledge mapping is locating a knowledge item (a node in a scalable network) within the categorization scheme developed for a given knowledge domain” (Boisot). Mapping knowledge domains (MKD) are used for making and visualizating the structure and dynamics of disciplines or networks (Borner, 2003; Boyack 2004), and different techniques are used for it. Because we work, initially, with a bibliographic dataset ,we’ll focus those related with literature/science mapping.
  6. 6. Science mapping can be done at several levels of granularity: disciplines (information science), research fields (science studies), research subfields (scientometrics) and research topics (citation analysis; scientific collaboration) (Besselaar, 2006). A research front allow us to obtain a picture of the main current research topics in a discipline, how the topics are related with each other and how they evolve over the time. Research fronts provide insights in how new scientific knowledge is incorporated into existing research (Upham 2010, Small 2003, Kuhn 1970).
  7. 7. We propose to work with the smallest unit of analysis, the “research topic” as an expression of a “knowledge item” within a scientific discipline, even we are aware that a “research topic” is a simplistic way to look at the knowledge item or knowledge assets. Perhaps, a second step analysis of the information around a “research topic” will allow us to define better what a KA is in the context of scientific publications.
  8. 8. Approaches Main idea Bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963) links documents that reference the same set of cited references Co-citation analysis (Marshakova, 1973, Small, 1973): links documents that It is assumed that co-citation gives the background of a are cited together. research front. The use of co-citation only has been criticized to draw a research front (lost of some topics, super citing effect, predominance of theoretical and review papers....) Co-word or word-coocurrences (Callon, 1986). Semantic similarity of research fields. It has been criticized as and indicative of a research front because the “words” can adopt different meanings depending on the context they are used, also with questions related to polysemus words or words with little semantic value (Leydesdorff 2004, 2010; Janssen 2008). Some new approaches (comibining clustering and factoring) are used to solve polysemy and synomy problems (Kawkkle 2009). Combination of citationbased approaches with text-based approaches (Zitt, 2010; Janssens, Co-occurences of words in references, or in titles and references. Several It is assumed the co-word highlighted better the new concepts, and the citations the knowledge background. The hybrid method allows to draw a more real delineation of research fronts It is assumed that bibliographic coupling gives the more dynamic and “actual” structure of a research front.
  9. 9. From Boyack; K; Klavans, R. JASIST 2010
  10. 10. Approaches Main idea Field to field citations * (Buter et al 2010) Citations form one scientific field to another are used to measure interdisciplinary connections Network Authors (Newman 2004; Lambiotte 2009) * useful to analysis the degree of abstraction? Useful to identify the creation of a new discipline, but also to identify knowledge that is generated in one field and is used in another one* With co-authors networks one can measure the influence of one author, or group of authors (named communities) in a research front
  11. 11. How could we measure the degree of codification and abstraction? Degree CODIFICATION ABSTRACTION* (II): by citations analysis High A well defined groups of topics over the years. The relations within the topics and subtopics is clear. The research topics and their relations are clearly identifiable The research topics of a research front have been “absorbed**” by others research fronts. Papers of a research front are highly cited by others research fronts. Medium A well defined group of topics over the years that generated subtopics, with a variations over the years Some papers of a research front are cited by others research fronts. Low A lot of topics exists without a clear structure of relations within them The papers of a research front are not cited by others research fronts. ** (Merton concept of “obliteration by incorporation”).”, we can use i.e the half-live of citations, as longer as it is, less abstraction: the concept has not been yet “absorbed” by others (Upham 2010) .
  12. 12. How could we measure the degree of codification and abstraction? Degree CODIFICATION ABSTRACTION* (I): by topic relations High A well defined groups of topics over the years. The relations within the topics and subtopics are clear. The research topics and their relations are clearly identifiable A well defined group of topics over the years. The same topic appears in different thematic clusters. One topic, not related with others at the beginning is related with other subtopics over the years. Can we say that some kind of centrality could work as an indicator of abstraction? Medium A well defined group of topics over the years that generated subtopics, with a variations over the years The topics between different thematic clusters have a weak relations, even that, the relation between topics of two thematic clusters exist. Low A lot of topics exists without a clear structure of relations within them There’s not relation within subtopics of different thematic clusters All the topics only appear in an isolated thematic clusters. *Further analysis on abstraction need to be done based on the relations and proximity between different fields, also the use of specific topics in different or distant thematic journals.
  13. 13. Our proposal We’ll use, as a first step, the co-word co-occurrence technique using title and abstract text of ISI records. We do it because it seems the most suitable one to translated latter to CERN databases. Even though, we could also use some more literature-based techniques to delineate how knowledge is used and transmitted within a research field. In a second step, we’d want to explore the above mentioned techniques to evaluated the degree of abstraction and codification in a research field using bibliographic information
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×