Argue, observe, assess: Measuring disciplinary identities and differences through socio-epistemic discourse

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1374-1387

  Demarest, Bradford ^a   Sugimoto, Cassidy R ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

(activities and operations); artificial intelligence; automatic classification; computer applications; computer operations; discourse analysis; informetrics; measurement; natural language processing; quantitative research; research and analytic methods

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPUTER APPLICATIONS; COMPUTER OPERATING PROCEDURES; EDUCATION COMPUTING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MEASUREMENTS;

(ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS); ANALYTIC METHOD; AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; INFORMETRICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84946207994     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23271     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Afros, E., &, Schryer, C.F., (2009). Promotional (meta)discourse in research articles in language and literary studies. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (1), 58-68. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2008.09.001
2. Argamon, S., Dodick, J., &, Chase, P., (2008). Language use reflects scientific methodology: A corpus-based study of peer-reviewed journal articles. Scientometrics, 75 (2), 203-238. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1768-y
3. Becher, T., &, Trowler, P.R., (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: 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., (1989). Bibliometrics and scholarly communication: Editor's introduction. Communication Research, 16 (5), 583-599. doi: 10.1177/009365089016005002
6. Boyack, K.W., Small, H., &, Klavans, R., (2013). Improving the accuracy of co-citation clustering using full text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (9), 1759-1767. doi: 10.1002/asi.22896
7. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., &, Laville, F., (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22 (1), 155-205.
8. Charles, M., (2003). "This mystery...": A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (4), 313-326.
9. Cleland, C.E., (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69 (3), 447-451. doi: 10.1086/342455
10. Coulter, N., Monarch, I., &, Konda, S., (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (13), 1206-1223.
11. Crane, D., (1972). Invisible colleges; diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Crismore, A., (1984). The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16 (3), 279-296.
13. Cronin, B., (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (7), 558-569. doi: 10.1002/asi.1097
14. Cronin, B., (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
15. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., &, La Barre, K., (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (9), 855-871.
16. Dahl, T., (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36 (10), 1807-1825. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
17. Demarest, B., (2013). Measuring identities and differences in epistemic communities in political sub-reddits: A novel-machine-learning-based metric. Presented at the Workshop on Informetric and Scientometric Research, Montreal, Canada.
18. Demarest, B., &, Sugimoto, C.R., (2013a). Interpreting epistemic and social cultural identities of disciplines with machine learning models of metadiscourse. In, J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberge, M. Hörlesberger, &, H. Moed, (Eds.), Proceedings of ISSI 2013 (Vol. 2, pp. 2027-2030). Vienna: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG.
19. Demarest, B., &, Sugimoto, C.R., (2013b). Using machine learning models to interpret disciplinary styles of metadiscourse in dissertation abstracts. In, L. Schamber, (Ed.), iConference 2013 Proceedings (pp. 901-904). Fort Worth, TX: iSchools.
20. Ding, Y., (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (1), 187-203.
21. Ding, Y., Yan, E., Frazho, A., &, Caverlee, J., (2009). PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (11), 2229-2243. doi: 10.1002/asi.21171
22. Egghe, L., &, Rousseau, R., (2002). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55 (3), 349-361.
23. Finlay, C.S., Sugimoto, C.R., Li, D., &, Russell, T.G., (2012). LIS dissertation titles and abstracts (1930-2009): Where have all the Librar∗ gone? 1. The Library, 82 (1), 29-46.
24. Gillaerts, P., &, Van de Velde, F., (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 128-139. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
25. Glänzel, W., &, Czerwon, H.-J., (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37 (2), 195-221.
26. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., &, Witten, I.H., (2009). The WEKA data mining software: An update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 11 (1), 10-18.
27. Halliday, M.A.K., (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold Press.
28. Hyland, K., (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductorycoursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 3-26.
29. Hyland, K., (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman.
30. Hyland, K., (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
31. Joachims, T., (1998). Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. In, C. Nédellec, &, C. Rouveirol, (Eds.), Machine learning: ECML-98 (pp. 137-142). Berlin: Springer.
32. Johns, A.M., &, Swales, J.M., (2002). Literacy and disciplinary practices: Opening and closing perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1 (1), 13-28. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00003-6
33. Kessler, M.M., (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14 (1), 10-25.
34. Klavans, R., &, Boyack, K.W., (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (3), 455-476.
35. 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.
36. Knorr-Cetina, K., (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Kuhn, T.S., (1962). The structure of scientific revoutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38. Law, J., (1976). The development of specialities in science: The case of X-ray protein crystallography. In, G. Lemaine, R. Macleod, M. Mulkay, P. Weingart, &, J. Law, (Eds.), Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines (pp. 123-152). Chicago: Walter de Gruyter.
39. Leydesdorff, L., &, Rafols, I., (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (2), 348-362.
40. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M.L., &, Van de Sompel, H., (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41 (6), 1462-1480.
41. Milojevic, S., Sugimoto, C.R., Yan, E., &, Ding, Y., (2011). The cognitive structure of library and information science: Analysis of article title words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (10), 1933-1953.
42. Montgomery, S.L., (2003). The Chicago Guide to Communication Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
43. Ni, C., Sugimoto, C.R., &, Cronin, B., (2013). V isualizing and comparing four facets of scholarly communication: Producers, artifacts, concepts, and gatekeepers. Scientometrics, 94 (3), 1161-1173.
44. Persson, O., (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (1), 31-38.
45. Platt, J.C., (1999). Sequential minimal optimization: A fast algorithm for training support vector machines. In, B. Schölkopf, C.J.C. Burges, &, A.J. Smola, (Eds.), Advances in kernel methods: Support vector learning (pp. 185-208). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Rescher, N., (2006). Epistemetrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Rip, A., &, Courtial, J.P., (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6 (6), 381-400.
48. Salter, L., &, Hearn, A., (1997). Outside the lines: Issues in interdisciplinary research. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
49. Small, H., (1981). The relationship of information science to the social sciences: A co-citation analysis. Information Processing and Management, 17 (1), 39-50.
50. Sugimoto, C.R., Li, D., Russell, T.G., Finlay, S.C., &, Ding, Y., (2011). The shifting sands of disciplinary development: Analyzing North American library and information science dissertations using latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62 (1), 185-204. doi: 10.1002/asi.21435
51. Swales, J., (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52. Toulmin, S.E., (1972). Human understanding (Vol. 1). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Tse, P., &, Hyland, K., (2006). "So what is the problem this book addresses?": Interactions in academic book reviews. Text and Talk, 26 (6), 767-790. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.031
54. White, H.D., &, McCain, K.W., (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 (4), 327-355.
55. Whitley, R., (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. New York: Clarendon Press.