Abstracts
Résumé
La recherche scientifique cherche la plupart du temps à comprendre la nature mais se tourne aussi à l’occasion vers elle-même pour mieux comprendre la genèse des connaissances scientifiques. Cette quête s’est traduite par une littérature importante portant sur les réseaux de collaborations entre auteurs pour produire des textes scientifiques. L’objectif général de cette branche de recherche est d’expliquer la structure des collaborations et de déterminer les corollaires de la performance dans le monde universitaire. Cet article vise à combler un manque de connaissance sur les réseaux de collaboration francophones en étudiant 40 ans de collaborations entre auteurs de la revue Criminologie. La méthodologie adopte une approche égocentrique et sociométrique et caractérise les liens entre les coauteurs de la revue. Nos résultats démontrent une augmentation des collaborations dans le temps, mais sans nécessairement la création d’une seule et unique communauté d’auteurs qui contrôlerait la diffusion des connaissances dans la revue. Les acteurs clés sont présentés mais ne montrent aucune stabilité dans le temps.
Mots-clés :
- Réseaux de coauteurs,
- analyse de réseaux,
- études longitudinales,
- réseaux francophones
Abstract
While scientific research usually seeks to understand the world around it, it occasionally looks at itself in an attempt to better understand how scientific knowledge is produced. These attempts have resulted in an important literature on the networks of collaborations that develop between the authors of scientific texts. The general objective of such research is to explain the structure of collaborations and to identify the corollaries such collaborations have in the academic world. This article aims to fill a gap in knowledge about francophone collaboration networks by studying 40 years of collaborations between Criminologie authors. The methodological approach is both egocentric and sociometric, which makes it possible to capture the links between co-authors. Results show an increase in collaborations over time but not necessarily the creation of a single community of authors who control the diffusion of knowledge in the journal. While there are key players, they change over time.
Keywords:
- Co-authorship networks,
- social network analysis,
- longitudinal research,
- francophone networks
Resumen
Generalmente, la investigación científica busca entender la naturaleza del conocimiento científico, pero, eventualmente, se enfoca también hacia sí misma para poder comprender mejor su génesis. Esta búsqueda se ha traducido en una literatura importante sobre las redes de colaboraciones entre autores para la producción de textos científicos. El objetivo general de este campo de investigación es explicar la estructura de las colaboraciones, y determinar los corolarios del rendimiento en el mundo universitario. El presente artículo intenta desarrollar el conocimiento sobre las redes de colaboración francófonas, estudiando 40 años de colaboraciones entre autores de la revista Criminologie. La metodología adopta una aproximación egocéntrica y sociométrica, y caracteriza los vínculos entre los coautores de la revista. Los resultados demuestran un aumento de las colaboraciones a través del tiempo, pero sin que, necesariamente, se cree una sola y única comunidad de autores que controle la difusión del conocimiento en la revista. Los actores clave son presentados, pero no demuestran ninguna estabilidad en el tiempo.
Palabras clave:
- Redes de coautores,
- análisis de redes,
- estudios longitudinales,
- redes francófonas
Appendices
Références
- Abbasi, A., Altmann, J. et Hossain, L. (2011). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars : A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594-607.
- Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K. et Hossain, L. (2012). Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 671-679.
- Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C. et Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies : An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 957-983.
- Babchuk, N., Keith, B. et Peters, G. (1999). Collaboration in sociology and other scientific disciplines : A comparative trend analysis of scholarship in the social, physical, and mathematical sciences. The American Sociologist, 30(3), 5-21.
- Badar, K., Hite, J. M. et Badir, Y. F. (2013). Examining the relationship of co-authorship network centrality and gender on academic research performance : The case of chemistry researchers in Pakistan. Scientometrics, 94(2), 755-775.
- Barabâsi, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A. et Vicsek, T. (2008). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A : Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3), 590-614.
- Boivin, R. et Lam, R. (2016). Sondages Web, opinion publique et performance policière. Criminologie, 49(1), 225-245.
- Borgatti, S. P. et Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4), 375-395.
- Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. et Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows : Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA : Analytic Technologies.
- Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W. et Vespignani, A. (2005). Studying the emerging global brain : Analyzing and visualizing the impact of co-authorship teams. Complexity, 10(4), 57-67.
- Cheong, F. et Corbitt, B. J. (2009). A social network analysis of the co-authorship network of the Pacific Asia Conference on information systems from 1993 to 2008. Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 23.
- Chung, K. S. K. et Hossain, L. (2009). Measuring performance of knowledge-intensive workgroups through social networks. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 34-58.
- Clarke, B. L. (1964). Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science, 143(3608), 822-824.
- De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P. et Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35(3), 370-381.
- Descormiers, K. et Corrado, R. (2015). Le processus de désaffiliation aux gangs. Le rôle des facteurs individuels et collectifs. Criminologie, 48(2), 139-163.
- Erfanmanesh, M., Rohani, V. A. et Abrizah, A. (2012). Co-authorship network of scientometrics research collaboration. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 17(3), 73-93.
- Glänzel, W. (2002). Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998) : A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Repéré à https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8409/librarytrendsv50i3k_opt.pdf?seq.
- Glänzel, W. et Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. Dans H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel et U. Schmoch (dir.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (p. 257-279). New York, NY : Springer.
- Gossart, C. et Özman, M. (2008). Co-authorship networks in social sciences : The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323-345.
- Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980-2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455-476.
- Katz, J. S. et Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration ? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18.
- Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A. et Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 989-1015.
- Kuhn, T. (1981). What are scientific revolutions. Boston, MA : MIT.
- Largeron-Leteno, C. et Massard, N. (2001). La géographie des collaborations scientifiques en France : une étude de la structuration des co-publications entre départements. Revue d’économie régionale et urbaine, (1), 39-52.
- Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. et Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417-435.
- Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships ? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3-15.
- Lee, S. et Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702.
- Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H. et Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact : A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515-1530.
- Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L. et Van De Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management, 41(6), 1462-1480.
- Lu, H. et Feng, Y. (2009). A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics, 81(2), 499-511.
- Melin, G. et Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377.
- Morel, C. M., Serruya, S. J., Penna, G. O. et Guimarães, R. (2009). Co-authorship network analysis : A powerful tool for strategic planning of research, development and capacity building programs on neglected diseases. Public Library of Science,3(8), e501.
- Newman, M. E. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(1), 5200-5205.
- Paul-Hus, A., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M. et Larivière, V. (2017). The sum of it all : Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 80-87.
- Pavlov, M. et Ichise, R. (2007). Finding experts by link prediction in co-authorship networks. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on finding experts on the web with semantics. Busan, Corée du Sud.
- Perretti, F. et Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats : How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 759-777.
- Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations : The growth of scientific knowledge. New York, NY : Routledge.
- Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278-287.
- Taylor, A. et Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four ? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740.
- Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A. et Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687-699.
- Velden, T., Haque, A. U. et Lagoze, C. (2010). A new approach to analyzing patterns of collaboration in co-authorship networks : Mesoscopic analysis and interpretation. Scientometrics, 85(1), 219-242.
- Wuchty, S., Jones, B. et Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1041.
- Yan, E. et Ding, Y. (2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis : A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(10), 2107-2118.
- Yin, L. C., Kretschmer, H., Hanneman, R. A. et Liu, Z. Y. (2006). Connection and stratification in research collaboration : An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1599-1613.
- Yu, Q., Shao, H. et Duan, Z. (2011). Research groups of oncology co-authorship network in China. Scientometrics, 89(2), 553-567.