請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51699
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 | Yun-Jen Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭允人 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:45:12Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-02-02 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-02-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-12-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 袁大鈺(民98)。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。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。
張郁蔚(民100)。從共同作者之學科組合探討跨學科合作:以高分子學研究為例。圖書與資訊學刊,(78),42-62。 張郁蔚(民98)。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。臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所,臺北市。 陳光華、梁瓊方(民93)。臺灣圖書資訊學之跨學科交流。圖書資訊學刊,2(2),31-55。 Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. L. (2006). The resource‐based theory: dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621-636. Astrom, F. (2007). Changes in the LIS research front: Time‐sliced cocitation analyses of LIS journal articles, 1990–2004. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 947-957. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859-880. Boyack, K. W. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5192-5199. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389-2404. Busa, R. A. (2004). Foreword: Perspectives on the digital humanities. In S. Schreibman, R. Siemens & J. Unsworth (Eds.), A companion to digital humanities (pp. 187-188). Malden: Blackwell. Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 43-64. Davidson, C. N. (2008). Humanities 2.0: Promise, perils, predictions. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 123(3), 707-717. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S243-S249. Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Moser, R. P., Taylor, B. K., Thornquist, M. D., Nebeling, L. C., Ehret, C. C., Barnett, M. J., McTiernan, A., Berger, N. A., Goran, M. I., & Jeffery, R. W. (2008). The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC Year-One evaluation study. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S161-S172. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S116-S123. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1973-1984. Leydesdorff, L. (2007a). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303-1319. Leydesdorff, L. (2007b). Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 71(3), 391-405. Leydesdorff, L., & Salah, A. A. A. (2010). Maps on the basis of the Arts & Humanities Citation Index: The journals Leonardo and Art Journal versus “digital humanities” as a topic. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 61(4), 787-801. Leydesdorff, L., & Schank, T. (2008). Dynamic animations of journal maps: Indicators of structural changes and interdisciplinary developments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1810-1818. Liu, A. (2012). The state of the digital humanities A report and a critique. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 11(1-2), 8-41. Liu, P., & Xia, H. (2015). Structure and evolution of co-authorship network in an interdisciplinary research field. Scientometrics, 103(1), 101-134. Liu, Y., Rafols, I., & Rousseau, R. (2012). A framework for knowledge integration and diffusion. Journal of Documentation, 68(1), 31-44. Masse, L. C., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B. K., Marcus, S. E., Morgan, G. D., Hall, K. L., Croyle, R. T., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S151-S160. McCain, K. W. (1998). Neural networks research in context: A longitudinal journal cocitation analysis of an emerging interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 41(3), 389-410. McPherson, T. (2009). Introduction: Media studies and the digital humanities. Cinema Journal, 48(2), 119-123. Mitrany, M., & Stokols, D. (2005). Gauging the transdisciplinary qualities and outcomes of doctoral training programs. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(4), 437-449. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51(1), 203-222. Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404-409. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179-194. Ponzi, L. J. (2002). The intellectual structure and interdisciplinary breadth of knowledge management: A bibliometric study of its early stage of development. Scientometrics, 55(2), 259-272. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117-147. Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273-282. Price, D. D. S. (1978). Toward a model for science indicators. Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators. New York: John Wiley. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263-287. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Van Raan, A. F. (2002a). Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Scientometrics, 53(2), 241-248. Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. E., Van Vuren, H. G., & Van Raan, A. F. (2002b). Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54(3), 347-362. Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social science & medicine, 35(11), 1343-1357. Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis & Praxis, 5(1), 53-69. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707-719. Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Unger, J., Palmer, P., Clark, M. A., Colby, S. M., Morgan, G., & Trochim, W. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl 1), S21-S39. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S96-S115. Svensson, P. (2009). Humanities computing as digital humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 3(3). Svensson, P. (2010). The landscape of digital humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 4(1). Tang, R. (2004), Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 54–63. van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. In Proceedings 8th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics - ISSI2001, Sydney: UNSW. van Raan, A. F. (2005). Measurement of central aspects of scientific research: Performance, interdisciplinarity, structure. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 3(1), 1-19. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Borner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14-26. Wang, X., & Inaba, M. (2009). Analyzing structures and evolution of digital humanities based on correspondence analysis and co-word analysis. ヤみЬ・эДみХ, 9, 123-134. Zitt, M., Ramanana-Rahary, S., & Bassecoulard, E. (2005). Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: From cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63(2), 373-401. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51699 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 由於資訊科技持續發展,電腦運算能力以及網路技術的成長對許多原有的學科產生相當影響,在資訊科技、人文學科、社會科學等學科之間產生了新興學科-數位人文,數位人文興起至今約30年左右,且其研究範圍以及關注內容在其成長期間持續變動,然而針對數位人文進行的知識整合研究數量卻非常少,因此對數位人文學科進行知識整合研究有其必要性。
本研究以跨學科作為研究知識整合的手段,採書目計量方式,以多樣性、凝聚性以及中心性作為主要指標,收錄1987至2014年12月的期刊、會議以及專書論文,於Scopus引文索引資料庫以及數位人文研究聯盟旗下期刊收錄到共2112篇文章,並以統計方法以及社會網絡分析方法,從包含學科的數目、研究內容的分佈、學科合作知識網絡以及實際合作人際網絡等不同角度觀察數位人文學科的跨學科變化趨勢與現況。 研究結果顯示:(一)數位人文包含領域以電腦科學、社會科學以及人文與藝術為主,但仍涵蓋許多其他學科;(二)研究主題分佈有漸趨集中的趨勢,但目前仍屬分散;(三)從知識網絡觀察得知,數位人文研究有共同的學科認同,不過由於人文學科涵蓋範圍廣泛,數位人文中之次領域內雖然合作知識交流頻繁,但次領域間知識交流極少;(四)從合著網絡得知,數位人文研究的跨地區以及跨次領域合作較少;(五)數位人文的多樣性偏高,凝聚性則有逐漸提升的趨勢。(六)數位人文知識網絡中各地區與各次領域皆有重要作者,無集中於特定地區或次領域的現象。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | “Digital Humanity” is an emerging cross-discipline between computer science, social science, art and humanities. As a young discipline, the range and the research topic of digital humanity has been evolving for the last 30 years, but there hasn’t been many researches of the knowledge integration in digital humanities.
In order to learn more about the trend of digital humanity, a bibliometric research was conducted using social analytical measures such as “diversity”, “cohesion” and “centrality” as main indicators of knowledge integration among different specialties in digital humanity. This research collected 2112 scholarly papers from journals, conference proceedings, and book as the target literatures of digital humanity. The result shows that: 1) Digital humanity is mainly comprised of computer science, social science, art and humanity, but there are other 20 disciplines included in the digital humanities. 2) The research topic of digital humanity is getting gradually consolidated since its early days, but it is still evenly distributed. 3) The knowledge network shows that the researches in digital humanity sharing a common outlook of the discipline, but humanity has a very broad range, which makes the knowledge sharing between the sub-disciplines in the digital humanity appears infrequently, relative to knowledge sharing inside the sub-disciplines appears frequently. 4) The co-author network shows that there are less collaboration between different sub-disciplines and countries. 5) The diversity of digital humanity remains high, and the coherence of digital humanity is gradually increasing through, remain largely fragmented compared to other fields. 6) In the knowledge network of digital humanity, there are important (which has high betweenness centrality) authors and publish sources in each country or sub-discipline, that played important role of holding the network together. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:45:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01126007-1.pdf: 3947841 bytes, checksum: a464a3806c30f135420e619c93c830e2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目次
謝辭 ii 摘要 iv Abstract v 圖表目次 vii 第壹章 緒論 1 第一節 問題陳述 1 第二節 研究目的與研究問題 4 第三節 研究範圍與限制 5 第四節 名詞解釋 6 第貳章 文獻回顧 8 第一節 跨學科概述 8 第二節 跨學科研究 12 第三節 數位人文概述 22 第參章 研究設計與實施 25 第一節 研究設計 25 第二節 研究工具與對象 31 第三節 研究步驟 34 第四節 資料處理與分析 35 第肆章 研究結果與討論 39 第一節 文獻與作者統計數據 39 第二節 數位人文之跨學科多樣性分析 42 第三節 數位人文網絡之凝聚性分析 53 第四節 社會網絡中心性分析 66 第五節 綜合討論 72 第伍章 結論與建議 84 第一節 結論 84 第二節 進一步研究建議 85 參考文獻 87 附錄 94 附錄一 出現超過一次之關鍵字列表 94 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 數位人文學科知識整合趨勢之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | A Study on Trend of Knowledge Integration in Digital Humanities | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳光華(Kuang-hua Chen),張郁蔚(Yu-Wei Chang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 數位人文,跨學科研究,多樣性,凝聚性,中心性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Digital humanity,Cross-discipline research,Diversity,Coherence,Centrality, | en |
dc.relation.page | 105 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-12-02 | |
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-104-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.86 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。