以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者探討 圖書資訊學跨學科之變遷

The Study of Interdisciplinary Changes in Library and Information Science- Using Direct Citation, Bibliographic Coupling and Co-authorship

張郁蔚(Yu-Wei Chang)

指導教授 ： 黃慕萱

國立臺灣大學/文學院/圖書資訊學研究所/博士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.00503

摘要

本研究旨在以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者等三種書目計量方法探討近30年（1978-2007）圖書資訊學之跨學科變遷情形，辨識對圖書資訊學有重要影響的學科，並以指標測量跨學科程度，以及比較三種書目計量方法之跨學科分析結果。本研究除進行圖書資訊學之整體分析外，亦將圖書資訊學分為圖書館學及資訊科學二個學科、區分圖書資訊學期刊文獻參考文獻的資料類型以及就10種圖書資訊學期刊分別進行跨學科分析，並比較分析結果，另輔以每10年及每年之不同時間長度觀察跨學科變遷情形。本研究對象係影響係數較高前10種圖書資訊學期刊之1978-2007出版的論文，經排除電腦科學文獻後，以20％之系統抽樣方式，過濾出1,536篇期刊文獻為圖書資訊學樣本期刊文獻，再依三種書目計量方法特性蒐集個別期刊文獻的27,678個參考文獻、不同期刊文獻之間共同的8,906個參考文獻及期刊合著文獻之1,536位共同作者資料，據以個別建立不同資料檔，以利進行相關的跨學科分析。
研究結果顯示，在學科分布之學科比例及排名部分，圖書資訊學高度依賴本身學科，並有自然科學傾向，但圖書館學較傾向社會科學領域，資訊科學較傾向自然科學領域。另比例最高與次高學科之比例差距明顯、全部學科累積比例有明顯集中於排名前幾大學科，以及三大科學領域的部分學科均有隨時間持續提高排名之情形，拉近其與圖書資訊學之間的關係。
在跨學科程度方面，資訊科學之跨學科程度明顯高於圖書館學，「圖書類」參考文獻之跨學科程度亦明顯高於「期刊類」參考文獻，而10種期刊中，Library Resources & Technical Services 的跨學科程度最低，Scientometrics的跨學科程度最高，且資訊科學期刊之跨學科數值未必高於圖書館學期刊。此外，跨學科數值與圖書資訊學比例之間有反比關係存在，以及圖書資訊學、資訊科學之跨學科程度呈現隨時間增加而提高之成長趨勢，但圖書館學以不同方法分析之結果則顯示其跨學科程度未必有提高情形。
至於三種書目計量方法之比較，以直接引用方法分析產出之學科數量最多，以共同作者方法分析產出之學科數量最少，以及每年之學科數量有呈現往上成長之趨勢。此外，以直接引用、書目耦合及共同作者等三種方法分析產出之學科排名結果有顯著一致性，彼此可互相取代，且三種書目計量方法中，以直接引用及書目耦合之學科排名一致性最高。但造成三種計量方法之分析結果仍有不一致的之原因，可能在於理論依據不同，致直接引用依據之全部參考文獻、書目耦合依據之共同參考文獻及共同作者依據合著期刊論文之共同作者，在樣本對象及樣本數量均不同情形下，跨學科結果不盡相同。其中共同作者之產生因至少須有2位不同作者共同發表文獻之事實，故相較於直接引用及書目耦合僅是作者單方面的引用行為，共同作者之產生遠比產生參考文獻困難，且共同作者反映的跨學科意義比直接引用及書目耦合更具體。因此在三種書目計量方法之應用與解釋上，須先確立欲呈現之跨學科意義，再採取適合之書目計量方法，如強調人際關係、合著關係之實質跨學科交流，可採用共同作者方式；如著重資訊流向的關係，可採用直接引用方法，但如強調核心參考文獻之跨學科結果，則可使用書目耦合方式。
由於圖書館學及資訊科學有不同的跨學科特性，圖書資訊學之跨學科分析應再就圖書館學及資訊科學個別分析，以免圖書資訊學之整體分析結果淡化圖書館學及資訊科學之跨學科差異。另「圖書類」參考文獻及「期刊類」參考文獻之跨學科結果並不相近，加上圖書及期刊文獻均是最常被引用的資料來源，故「圖書類」參考文獻須是參考文獻的分析範圍。

關鍵字

跨學科分析 ； 圖書資訊學 ； 直接引用 ； 書目耦合 ； 共同作者

並列摘要

This study used bibliometric methods including direct citation, bibliographic coupling and coauthorship to analyze interdisciplinary characteristics in Library and Information Science (LIS) and used Brillouin’s Index , an interdisciplinary indicator, to measure the interdisciplinary degree. In addition, the interdisciplinary characteristics in library science, information science, types of references and 10 LIS journals are compared, and interdisciplinary changes over time are tracked. Subjects were 27,678 references of 1,536 articles, 8,906 references from 1,536 citing articles which share items in their reference lists and 1,536 authors of 644 co-authored articles published in 10 LIS journals, consisting of 5 library science journals and 5 information science journals, systematic sampling 15%.
The major findings were summarized as follows. LIS literature and authors has the heaviest reliance on LIS literature and authors, following general science literature and authors. Library science has interdisciplinary characteristics distinct from information science. For example, library science is a social science-oriented discipline while information science is a natural science-oriented discipline. As for the percentage distribution of discipline, large differences in percentage distribution between the two highest ranking disciplines are obvious, and about 80％ of citations or coauthors concentrate top 5 disciplines ranked by percentage distribution of discipline. In addition, the ranking of some disciplines in humanities, social sciences and natural sciences has been raising every 10 years.
Degree of interdisciplinarity in information science is higher than library science. However, degree of interdisciplinarity in information science journals is not higher than all library science journals. Among 10 LIS journals, Library Resources & Techninical Services has the lowest degree of interdisciplinrarity, while Scientometrics has the highest degree of interdisciplinarity. In addition, a reverse relationships between the percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature and the degree of interdisciplinarity. The higher percentage distribution of citations to LIS literature or coauthor in LIS , the lower the degree of interdisciplinarity. Degree of interdisciplinarity in LIS and information science has positive growth trends, but not all the analysis results by three bibliometric methods have shown library science also has the same trends.
The number of discipline has positive growth trends in LIS, library science and information science. Further, 30 disciplines ranking in LIS, library science and information science analyzed by three bibliometric methods are obviously consistent. Especially, direct citation and bibliographic coupling has the highest consistency among three bibliometric methods. In the view of the high consistency, three bibliometrics methods can replace one another. However, the possible reason that explains different results analyzed by three bibliometric methods is the difference between bibliometric theories. It is not surprised to see the different analysis results from different samples. Comparing a reference to a co-author, it is more difficult to increase a co-author than a reference does. When applying for the three bibliometric methods, it is important to make sure the meaning of interdisciplinarity, then take proper bibiometric method. For example, co-authorship can present more practical interdisciplinary interaction, direct citation can track the information flow among literature, and bibliographic coupling can show interdisciplinary characteristics existing in core references.
In short, both library science and information science has their disciplinary nature, library science and information science should be analyzed separately to present individual interdisciplinary characteristics. Also, books and journal articles are main cited sources, book citations should be included in citations samples.

並列關鍵字

interdisciplinary analysis ； library and information science ； direct citation ； bibliographic coupling ； co-authorship

參考文獻

林欣怡 (民94)。臺灣與日本圖書資訊學研究之比較。未出版之碩士論文，台灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，台北市。

何蕙菩（民97）。圖書資訊學知識來源與知識擴散學科之研究。未出版之碩士論文，臺灣大學圖書館學研究所，台北市。

傅雅秀（民91）。從生命科學期刊論文作者數探討科學合作。圖書資訊學刊，17，71-80。

Khawam, Y. J. (1990). Citation patterns in the artificial intelligence journal literature : a study in the determination of an interdisciplinary research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

Rinia, E. J., Leeuwen, T. N. v., Bruins, E. E. W., Vuren, H. G. v., & Raan, A. F. J. v. (2002). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347-362.