2008-11-30
Loet Leydesdorff
Center of Attention: 5 Questions: With Loet Leydesdorff, Associate Professor, Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Loet Leydesdorff
1. What do you view as the most important current developments in bibliometrics?
I look at scientometrics from a different angle than librarians do, namely from the perspective of science and technology (S&T) studies. Scientometrics is then primarily a methodological toolbox for operationalization and measurement; theorizing must come from the social sciences (sociology, communication studies, political science and economics). Important developments in scientometrics from this perspective are algorithmic historiography and dynamic visualizations.
I look at scientometrics from a different angle than librarians do, namely from the perspective of science and technology (S&T) studies. Scientometrics is then primarily a methodological toolbox for operationalization and measurement; theorizing must come from the social sciences (sociology, communication studies, political science and economics). Important developments in scientometrics from this perspective are algorithmic historiography and dynamic visualizations.
The questions then become how can these tools help us to understand the dynamics of discursive knowledge in the development of science and technology, and which theoretical questions can be answered by using these methods? For example, an urgent question in the science policy arena has been the quest for a baseline against which to measure induced changes. Can the relatively slow development of aggregated journal뻡ournal citation relations over time be used as such a baseline for the calibration of government interventions in terms of their effectivity and efficiency?
2. Why have you created the Scirus Topic Page titled 밠easuring Research Output with Science & Technology Indicators?
I had just written a paper in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology titled "Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal Evaluation" [JASIST, 59 (2), (2008) 278?87] and thought it timely to warn against the irreflexive use of ranking in S&T policy applications and management. These tools are constructs that are theoretically informed, although the application-oriented user may not be aware of the underlying assumptions.
I had just written a paper in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology titled "Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal Evaluation" [JASIST, 59 (2), (2008) 278?87] and thought it timely to warn against the irreflexive use of ranking in S&T policy applications and management. These tools are constructs that are theoretically informed, although the application-oriented user may not be aware of the underlying assumptions.
In general, ranking reduces the complexity of a multidimensional problem to a simple number. The production of rankings has become an industry with its own interests in pursuing such simplifications as seemingly value-neutral applications of statistics. That is not the case: The statistics can easily go wrong when one does not realize that one is not measuring a given "nature," but cultural constructs. Cultural constructs, for example, are often not normally distributed. The impact factor, however, provides an average measure on a skewed distribution. Comparing journals in terms of impact factors is problematic even after normalization for the field. However, the use of rankings and impact factors is driven by policy needs and market demand.
3. How can the new Scirus Topic Page help emerging researchers who are just starting to study bibliometrics?
I hope the new Scirus Topic Page flags problems and provides references for further study (Leydesdorff, 1995). I also hope the page provides arguments to scientists and those in the wider audiencewho have found administratorsmay misuse impact statistics.
I hope the new Scirus Topic Page flags problems and provides references for further study (Leydesdorff, 1995). I also hope the page provides arguments to scientists and those in the wider audiencewho have found administratorsmay misuse impact statistics.
4. How do you expect the field of bibliometrics to change in the near future?
We may see an increasing differentiation between the more policy-oriented use of bibliometrics as management information and the more theoretical approaches that are not necessarily and immediately policy-relevant. However, the need to master the techniques to analyze huge amounts of data may bind the field together. For example, applied physicists, who have found the Web an inspiring source for studying the developments of large networks, are becoming a third party in this field. Their inclusion reinforces the tendency not to question the results in terms of what they mean from a social science perspective.
We may see an increasing differentiation between the more policy-oriented use of bibliometrics as management information and the more theoretical approaches that are not necessarily and immediately policy-relevant. However, the need to master the techniques to analyze huge amounts of data may bind the field together. For example, applied physicists, who have found the Web an inspiring source for studying the developments of large networks, are becoming a third party in this field. Their inclusion reinforces the tendency not to question the results in terms of what they mean from a social science perspective.
5. What aspects of bibliometrics particularly interest you?
My personal interests are in the direction of how one can study the communication of meaning on top of the communication of information. Web 2.0 developments (e.g., semantic mapping) go in this direction. Because meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight, this approach can be linked with the theory and computation of anticipatory systems. Scientific knowledge is discursive (and therefore communicated) knowledge; knowledge can be considered as a meaning with a special meaning. Thus, the anticipation can further be reinforced by scientific modeling to the extent that the model can guide human actions, e.g., in shaping new technologies. The study of intentional systems and their communication, in my opinion, is crucial to further developing the social sciences.
My personal interests are in the direction of how one can study the communication of meaning on top of the communication of information. Web 2.0 developments (e.g., semantic mapping) go in this direction. Because meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight, this approach can be linked with the theory and computation of anticipatory systems. Scientific knowledge is discursive (and therefore communicated) knowledge; knowledge can be considered as a meaning with a special meaning. Thus, the anticipation can further be reinforced by scientific modeling to the extent that the model can guide human actions, e.g., in shaping new technologies. The study of intentional systems and their communication, in my opinion, is crucial to further developing the social sciences.
www.leydesdorff.net/journals/nanotech/index.htm
http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_Indicators.html
http://topics.scirus.com/Measuring_Research_Output_with_Science_Technology_Indicators.html
References
- Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University.
- Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the use of citation indicators in research and journal evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (2), 278-87.
