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

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。

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.