Kartläggning av ett tvärvetenskapligt forskningsproblem : en studie av forskningsproduktionen inom OCD med hjälp av bibliometri
Sammanfattning: Bibliometrics is an important tool for researchers within the field of library and information science. Most studies that use bibliometrics to study interdisciplinarity have either been evaluations or have taken the perspective of a single discipline. There has also been a focus on the social aspects of research, that is publications and people, whereas studies that look at the cognitive aspects, such as topic, are rare. It is common to take either a top-down perspective, using existing classifications, or a bottom-up perspective, assigning classes based on similarities through for example bibliographic coupling, co-word or co-authorship analysis. Studies using both perspectives are rare. In this study, we used bibliometrics to study and map research production based on an interdisciplinary research problem. We combine social and cognitive measures to study how they interact and complement each other. We use bottom-up analysis to create groups and compare these with top-down classifications, based on Thomson Reuters’ Subject Category and author information, in search for overlaps. We choose to study the scientific literature produced on Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which is a well-defined research problem with distinct search terms. Our study had two motives: (1) to map the research production on OCD and (2) to compare the different bibliometric measures and methods used. The data was collected from Web of Science by searching for publications with OCD in their title. Our focus was on articles published between 2009–2018 by researchers in the Nordic countries. We also collected additional data concerning the authors. We found that the literature on OCD covered a wide range of topics, with a strong connection to applied science and practice. The authors came from several different social and cognitive backgrounds. Authors cited and cooperated across disciplinary boundaries, suggesting both multi- and interdisciplinarity. Bibliographic coupling resulted in diverse groups with mixed topics. Groupings based on research topics were more specific and the choice of topic was partly connected to the authors discipline. Author collaborations were explained by a combination of research topic and author affiliation (type of organisation and location). When comparing bibliometric measures, we found that Subject Category produced the lowest number of interdisciplinary documents and did not correlate with the other measures. We also found that both social and cognitive measures explained how the knowledge production was organised. By combining bottom-up and top-down classifications, we were able to answer both how the knowledge production was organised and why it was organized this way. Our results thus confirm the need to use multiple methods to capture all aspects when mapping a research problem.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)