Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Employing Informetric Analysis to Identify Dominant Research Areas in the Top Ranking U.S. LIS Schools

계량정보학적 분석을 통한특정 대학원의 핵심 연구분야 파악: 미국 상위 10개 문헌정보학 대학원을 대상으로

  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Authoritative as well as objective information on ranking or dominant research areas of academic departments/schools in a certain discipline is essential for the graduate school applicants. In this study, we performed an informetric analysis to identify dominant research areas in the top 10 U.S. LIS schools. We used two different datasets of research productivity and research interests of the LIS faculty. The correspondence analysis method was employed to graphically display the association between research areas and the LIS schools. We found that the research Productivity data collected from SSCI database generated a very informative map presenting which research areas were dominant in which LIS schools. We also found that for the two most productive suhject areas in LIS over the past 10-year period, the proportion of research articles in information retrieval decreased to a great extent in the recent 5-rear period, whereas that of information seeking behavior showed an almost same degree of increase.

이 연구에서는 대학원 지원자들이 특정 연구분야가 강한 대학원을 선택하는 데 도움을 주기 위해 어느 대학원이 어떤 연구분야에서 특히 강한가를 파악할 수 있는 계량정보학적 분석 방법을 제안하였다. 분석을 위해 미국의 상위 10개 문헌정보학 대학원을 선정하고, 각 대학원 교수진의 최근 10년 간의 연구논문과 홈페이지에 등록되어 있는 관심분야를 수집하였다. 연구생산성 데이터가 관심분야 데이터에 비해 더 신뢰할 수 있는 분석 결과를 보였으며, 빈도 데이터 분석과 대응일치 분석 결과 각 대학이 어느 주제분야에서 특히 강한가를 파악할 수 있었을 뿐만 아니라 대학원간의 인접성을 측정할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adloms., D. and Budd, J. 2006. "Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty". Library & Information Research, 28: 374-389 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2006.03.021
  2. Anuradha, K. T. and Urs, S. 2007. "Bibliometric indicators of Indian research collaboration patterns: A correspondence analysis." Scientometrics, 71 (2): 179-189 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1657-4
  3. Cronin, B. and Meho, L. 2006. "Using the h-index to rank influential information scientists." J. of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9): 1275-1278 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20354
  4. Dare, J. C. and Ojasoo, T. 2001. "How to analyze publication time trends by correspondence factor analysis: Analysis of publications by 48 countries in 18 disciplines over 12 years." J. of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(9): 763-769 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1130
  5. Dore, J. C. et aI. 1996. "Correspondence factor analysis of the publication patterns of 48 cotmtries over the period 1981-1992." J. of the American Society for Information Science, 47(8): 588-602 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199608)47:8<588::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-P
  6. Greenacre, M. J. 1993. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. London: Academic Press
  7. Imperial, J. and Uez-Navarro, R.R. 2007. "Usefulness of Hirsch's h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain" Scientometrics, 71(2): 272-282
  8. Meho, L. I. and Spurgin, KM. 2005. "Ranking the research productivity of library and information science faculty and schools: An evaluation of data sources and research methods." J. of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (12): 1314-1331 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20227
  9. Van Raan, A. F. 2006. "Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147chemistry research groups." Scientometrics, 67(3): 491-502 https://doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.10