請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/45371完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 唐牧群(Muh-Chyun Tang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Da-Yu Yuan | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 袁大鈺 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T04:16:37Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2010-01-11 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2010-01-11 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2009-12-29 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 行政院國家科學委員會社會科學研究中心。臺灣社會科學引文索引(TSSCI)資料庫。上網日期：民國98年12月3日，檢自：http://ssrc.sinica.edu.tw/ssrc-home/5-2.htm。
何嘉惠、葉育呈（2007）。運用網絡分析探討實務社群之信任關係與知識分享。經營管理論叢，3(1)，17-28。 陳鴻基（2003）。子計畫三：以社會網絡分析法評估虛擬社群知識分享（國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，NSC92-2461-H-007-002）。新竹市：國立清華大學科技管理研究所。 張火燦、劉淑寧（2002）。從社會網絡理論探討員工知識分享。人力資源管理學報，2(3)，101-113。 黃心怡（2007）。資訊科技對協同合作網絡的學術生產力影響：弱連帶優勢？強連結優勢？資訊社會研究，13，167-191。 傅雅秀（1999）。從圖書資訊學的觀點探討科學傳播。台北市：漢美。 蔡明月（1997）。學術傳播與書目計量學。教育資料與圖書館學，35(1)，38-57。 蔡清潣（2008）。學術創業中跨領域互動之研究。未出版之碩士論文，國立清華大學科技管理研究所，新竹市。 劉軍（2004）。社會網絡分析導論。北京：社會科學文獻出版社。 蘇國賢（2004）。社會學知識的社會生產：台灣社會學者的隱形學群。台灣社會學，8。 Adler, P. & Kwon, S-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40. Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Intenet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1350-1367. Boix-Mansill, V. & Gardner, H. (2003). Interdisciplinary Studies Project, Project zero. Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical exploration of “symptoms of quality. Harvard Graduates School of Education. Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachosettes, London, England: The MIT Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for sociology of education, pp. 241-258. New York: Greenwood. Brown, C. D.(2001), The role of computer-mediated communication in the research process of music scholars: an exploratory investigation. [Electronic version] Information Research, 6(2). Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Future, 36, 457-470. Bruhn, J. G. (1995). Beyond discipline: Creating a culture for interdisciplinary research. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, September-December, 30(4), 331-341. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 42, 339-365. Cohen J.(1996). Computer mediated communication and publication productivity among faculty. Internet Research, 6(2-3), 41-63. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Coleman J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible college: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chubin, D. E. (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialities. Sociological Quarterly, 17(4), 448-476. Crawford, S. (1971). Informal communication among scientists in sleep research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 22(5), 301-310. Cummings, J. N. & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722. Finholt, T.A. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology , 36, 74-107. Fong, Patrick S. W. (2003). Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: An Empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 479-486. Fry, J. & Talja, S. (2007). The intellectual and social organization of academic fields and the shaping of digital resources. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 115-133. Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issue. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management. New York, NY: Columbia University. Garvey, W. D. & Griffith, B. C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrival, 8, 123-136. Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science: Facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientistsm engineersm and students. New York: Pergamon Press. Gabbay, S. M. (1997). Social capital in the creation of financial capital: The case of network marketing. Illinois: Stipes Publishing. Gabbay, S. M. & Stein, A. J. (1999). Embedding social structure in technological infrastructure: Constructing regional social capital for a sustainable peace In the middle east.’ In J. Wright (Ed.), The political economy of Middle East Peace , pp. 154-180 . Boston and London: Routledge. Gabbay, S.M., & Leenders, R. A. J. (2001). Social capital of organizations: From social structure to the management of corporate social capital., In Gabbay, S.M. and Leenders, R.Th.A.J. (eds) Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 18, 1-20. Stamford CT, JAI Press. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, C., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society. London: Sage. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Hansson, B. (1999). Interdisciplinarity: For what purpose? Policy Sciences, 32, 339-343. Haribabu, E. (2000). Cognitive empathy as a methodological tool in transdisciplinary research: A sociological study of biotechnology in India. In R. W. Scholz, R. Haberli, A. bill and M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions. Vol.2, Zurich: Haffmans Sachbah Verlag, pp. 52-53. Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., & Mantei, M. (1995). Work relationships and media use: A social networks analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4, 193-211. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1079-1092. Hesse, B. W., Sproull, L. S., Kiesler, S. B., & Walsh, J.P. (1993). Returns to science: Computer networks in oceanography. Communications of the ACM, 36(8), 90-101. Huysman, M. & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21, 40-51. Johanson, J. (2001). The balance of corporate social capital: Network cohesion as a determinant of instrumental and expressive benefits in a public organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 18, 231-261. Kanfer, A., Haythornthwaite, C., Bruce, B. C., Bowker, G., Burbules, N., Porac, J., & Wade, J. (2000). Modeling distributed knowledge processes in next generation multidisciplinary alliances. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(3/4), 317-331. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Klein, J. T. (1986). The broad scope of interdisciplinarity. In D. E. Cubin, A. L. Porter, & T. Connolly (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Analysis and Research. Mt Airy, MD: Lomond Publications. Klein, J. T. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E: CO Special Double Issue, 6(1-2), 2-10. Klein, J. T. (2006). A platform for a shared discourse of interdisciplinary education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(2), 10-18. Lattuca, L. R. (2003). Creating interdisciplinarity: Grounded definitions form college and university faculty. History of Intellectual Culture, 3(1). Lamb, R., & Davidson, E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. [Electronic version]. Information Society, 21(1), 1-24. McFadyen, M. A. & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735-746. Moran, P. & Ghoshal, S. (1996). Value creation by firms. In J.B. Keys and L.N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 41-45. Mullin, N. C., Hargens, L.L., Hecht, P. K., & Kick, E. L. (1977). The group structure of cocitation clusters: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 42, 552-562. Naiman, R. J. (1999). A perspective on interdisciplinary science. Ecosystems, 2, 292-295. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intelligence capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. Neumann-Held, E. & Rehmann-Sutter, C. (2000). Philosophy and developmental genetics. In R. W. Scholz, R. Haberli, A. bill and M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions. Vol.2, Zurich: Haffmans Sachbah Verlag, pp. 90-92. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press. Palmer, C. L. (1996). Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academis Publishers. Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structure and strategies of interdisciplinary science. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242-253. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187-195. Price, D. J. de Solla (1968). Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press. Putnam, R.D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 13, 35-42. Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893-916. Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report, National Science Foundation BCS0129573: A Multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Hybrid Vigor Institute. Rhoton, D. (2005). Interdisciplinary research: Trend of transition? [Electronic version]. Item and Issue, 5(6). Rigby, J. & Edler, J. (2005). Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Research Policy, 34, 784-794. Rojo, A., & Ragsdale, R.G. (1997). A process perspective on participation in scholarly electronic forums. Science Communication, 18(4), 320-341. Schonlaub, H. (2000). Public understanding of geosciences. In R. W. Scholz, R. Haberli, A. bill and M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. Workbook II: Mutual learning sessions. Vol.2, Zurich: Haffmans Sachbah Verlag, pp. 189-199. Sondergaard, F., Andersen, J., & Hjorland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information: Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59, 278-320. Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A Quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research. Research Policy, 21, 27-44. Tuire, P. & Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case, Higher Education, 42, 493-513. Van den Besselaar, P. & Heimeriks, G. (2001).Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. (paper for the 8th conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI2001, Sydney, Australia, July, 16-20) UNISIST (1971). Study Report on the Feasibility of a World Science Information System, by the United Nation Educationalm Scentific and Cultural Organization and the International Council of Scientific Unions. Paris: UNESCO. Verspagen, B. & Werker, C. (2003). The invisible college of the economics of innovation and technological change. Estudios De Economia Aplicada, 21(3), 393-419. Walsh, J. P. & Bayma, T. (1996). The virtual college: Computer-mediated communication and scientific work. The Information Society, 12, 343-363. Walsh, J. P., Kucker, S. Maloney, N., & Gabbay, S. (2000). Connecting minds: Computer-mediated communication and scientific work. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1295-1305. Wasserman, S. & K. Faust. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Weedman, J. (1993). On the isolation of humanist scholars: A report of an invisible college. Communication Research, 20, 749-776. White, H. D., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure? Longitudinal Evidence from the “Globenet” interdisciplinary research group. JASIST, 55(2): 111-126. Zaltman, G. (1974). A note on an international invisible college for information exchange. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 25(2), 113-117. Ziman, J. (1999). “Postacademic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67-80. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modelling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152-168. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/45371 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 近年來國內跨領域研究有逐漸崛起的趨勢，科技與社會研究（Science, Technology and Society studies, STS）便是其中一例。有鑑於國內探討跨領域研究的相關文獻甚少，領域知識發展的歷程又和參與知識生產的學術社群有密切關係，故本研究將探討STS學術社群之智識網絡，希望揭示跨領域學術社群內部的智識網絡結構。本研究針對61名STS成員，使用書目計量學與社會網絡分析法進行資料蒐集與分析。根據學者過去發表的文獻，研究者分別使用書目耦合與作者共被引技術進行資料處理，得到兩個代表該社群智識的關係矩陣。研究者接續使用社會網絡分析技術分別對二者進行整體網絡分析、社會子群體分析、社會結構分析。研究結果顯示，此跨領域學術社群之網絡連結密度偏低，並且存在少數核心人物發揮凝聚網絡的影響力。根據行動者的連結模式，可將網絡分作7~8個子群體；除此之外，該網絡亦存在聯繫不同群體的「橋樑」角色。本研究發現此社群有跨研究領域、跨研究議題交流的現象。本研究亦發現該社群不僅有領域內的交流，領域間聯繫亦相當頻繁，此現象說明該社群之智識互動式建立在研究主題與議題之上，非侷限於相同學科背景內部。研究結果亦顯示該社群有知識重覆的冗贅性(knowledge redundancy)，為跨領域交流溝通之基礎。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Recently interdisciplinary research has been receiving more and more attention in Taiwan. Yet there is little relevant literature on interdisciplinary research in Taiwan, especially on how knowledge of different origins are connected and synthesized. A case in point is the development of Science, Technology and Society Studies (STS) community. This study aims to reveal the intellectual network structure inside interdisciplinary scholarly communities by exploring Taiwan’s STS, using Bibliometrics and Social Network Analysis (SNA).
Based on 61 STS members’ journals articles, the researcher created two relational matrices to represent the intellectual structure of the community, one through bibliometric coupling technique; the other, author co-citation technique. By applying several SNA techniques, the researcher is able to analyze the configuration, social subgroups and social structure of this intellectual network. Research findings show that the network connection density tends to be low and that there are several central figures who have influence on network cohesion. Based on actors’ similarity of connection pattern, the network can be divided into 7 to 8 subgroups. Furthermore, the social role of “the bridge” was identified who were responsible for connecting different social subgroups. Findings also reveal that the communication in terms of citation occurs not only within but also between disciplines, which demonstrates that the intellectual interaction crosses the disciplinary boundaries. The last finding suggests that the network is woven on the basis of research topics and issues instead of disciplines. It also suggests the existence of knowledge redundancy to a certain degree, which could be critical in order to communicate in such a diverse scholarly environment. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T04:16:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R95126014-1.pdf: 2986752 bytes, checksum: 6667bb0f590d3e123e493b3e6dbefc5b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 次
中文摘要 i 英文摘要 ii 目 次 iv 圖目次 vi 表目次 vii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 6 第三節 研究範圍與限制 7 第四節 名詞解釋 9 第二章 文獻分析 11 第一節 社會資本 11 第二節 知識生產 20 第三節 跨領域研究活動與關係 31 第四節 「科技與社會」研究 52 第三章 研究方法與步驟 55 第一節 研究方法與設計 55 第二節 研究工具與對象 59 第三節 資料處理與分析 64 第四節 研究步驟 69 第四章 研究結果分析 73 第一節 STS社群之組成背景 73 第二節 STS社群之網絡分析 78 第三節 由社會資本三面向探討網絡結構 102 第四節 小結 110 第五章 結論與建議 115 第一節 結論 115 第二節 建議 118 參考文獻 121 附錄 127 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 學術社群 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 網絡結構 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 社會網絡分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 書目計量學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 科技與社會研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 跨領域研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Bibliometrics | en |
| dc.subject | interdisciplinary research | en |
| dc.subject | scholarly communities | en |
| dc.subject | network structure | en |
| dc.subject | Science | en |
| dc.subject | Technology and Society Studies (STS) | en |
| dc.subject | Social Network Anaysis (SNA) | en |
| dc.title | 跨領域學術社群之智識網絡結構初探：以臺灣科技與社會研究為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring Intellectual Network Structure of an Interdisciplinary Research Community: A Case Study of Taiwan's STS Community | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 98-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳光華(Kuang-hua Chen),彭渰雯 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 跨領域研究,學術社群,網絡結構,科技與社會研究,社會網絡分析,書目計量學, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | interdisciplinary research,scholarly communities,network structure,Science, Technology and Society Studies (STS),Social Network Anaysis (SNA),Bibliometrics, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 133 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2010-01-03 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 圖書資訊學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 圖書資訊學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-98-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.92 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。