Coordination and control of research practice across scientific fields: Implications for a differentiated e-science

New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 167-187

  Fry, Jenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847319654     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-717-1.ch008     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Atwell, E., Demetriou, G., Hughes, J., Schiffrin, A., Souter, C., & Wilcock, S. (2000). A comparative evaluation of modern English corpus grammatical annotation schemes. ICAME Journal, 24, 7-23.
2. Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession (pp. 271-301). Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. nd ed.). Buckingham: SHRE & Open University Press.
4. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
5. Borgman, C. L., Smart, L. J., Millwood, K. A., Finley, J. R., Champeny, L., Gilliland, A. J., & Leazer, G. H. (2005). Comparing faculty information seeking in teaching and research: Implications for the design of digital libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 56(6), 636-657.
6. Borsley, R. D., & Ingham, R. (2002). Grow your own linguistics? On some applied linguists' views of the subject. Lingua, 112, 1-6.
7. Borsley, R. D., & Ingham, R. (2003). More on "some applied linguists": A response to Stubbs. Lingua, 113, 193-196.
8. Bowker, G. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 643-84.
9. Burnard, L. (1988). Report of workshop on text encoding guidelines. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 3, 131-133.
10. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. London: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Fry, J. (2004). The cultural shaping of ICTs within academic fields: Corpus-based linguistics as a case study. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(3), 303-319.
12. Fry, J. (2006). Scholarly research and information practices: A domain analytic approach. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 299-316. Retrieved November 24, 2004, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03064573
13. Fry, J. (forthcoming). Understanding disciplinary differential on the web. Cybermetrics.
14. Fujimura, J., & Fortun, M. (1996). Representing nature in bytes: The construction of molecular genetic sequence databases. In L. Nader (Ed.), Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge (pp. 160-173). New York: Routledge.
15. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
16. Garfield, E. (1964). Science citation index: A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649-654.
17. Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication: The essence of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
18. Granstrand, O. (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
19. Hagstrom, W. (1965). The scientific community. London: Basic Books.
20. Hockey, S. (2000). Electronic texts in the humanities: Principles and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Kling, R. (1991). Social analyses of computing. In C. Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.), Computerization and controversy (pp.150-166). Boston: Academic Press.
22. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
23. Kling, R., Spector, L., & Mckim, G. (2002). Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: The guild model. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8(1). Retrieved March 4, 2004, from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html
24. Knorr-Cetina, K.(1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
25. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 232-255). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
27. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Law, J. (1973). The development of specialities in science: The case of x-ray protein crystallography. Science Studies, 3, 275-303.
29. Lenoir, T. (1997). Instituting science: The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30. Lenoir, T. (1998). Shaping biomedicine as an information science. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on the History and Heritage of Science Information Systems.
31. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). A sociological theory of communication: The self-organization of the knowledge-based society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers.
32. Leydesdorff, L. (2005). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model. In W. Dolfsma & L. Soete (Eds.), Reading the dynamics of a knowledge economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, (forthcoming).
33. Leydesdorff, L., & H. Etzkowitz (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203.
34. NSF (2002). Science & Engineering Indicators-2002 (NSB 02-1), Chapter 5 academic research and development.
35. Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
36. Salkie, R. (Personal communication April 7, 2004).
37. Sampson, G. (2003). Are we nearly there yet, mum? Corpus Linguistics 2003. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from http://www.grsampson.net/Aawn.html
38. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1999). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
39. Stubbs, M. (2002). On text and corpus analysis: A reply to Borsley and Ingham. Lingua, 112, 7-11.
40. Swales, J. M. (1998). Other floors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
41. Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 46-65). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
42. Van Dalen-Oskam, K., & Van Zundert, J. (2004). Modeling features of characters: Some digital ways to look at names in literary texts. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19(3), 289-301.
43. Walsh, J. P., & Bayma, T. (1996). Computer networks and scientific work. Social Studies of Science, 26(4), 661-703.
44. Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.). (2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. London: University of Toronto Press.
45. nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
46. Wouters, P. (2004). The virtual knowledge studio for the humanities and social sciences @the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Amsterdam: the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved July 27, 2005, from http://www.knaw.nl/cfdata/news/latestnews_detail.cfm?nieuws__id=272