Comparaison De L'Analyse Structurale Et De L'Analyse Scientometrique Dans L'Etude De La Production Scientifique

Abstract

Comparison of Structural Analysis and Scientometric Analysis in the Study of Scientific Production: This article is based on the study of networks of advice, coauthorship and cocitation among a certain category of French cancer researchers. We show that the study of scientific production based on strictly quantitative indicators, characteristic of scientometry, is not sufficient. It is also necessary to take into account social networks constructed among such researchers to have a more complete view of a scientific domain and how it is organized. In a comparative process, we present the structural approach which answers this requirement through the use of hypotheses concerning intra-organization of interdependent entrepreneurs that are tested at the inter-organizational level. The two approaches—scientometrics and structural analysis—are then shown to be strongly complementary in their results which lead to a better understanding of how a scientific field of research functions and the roles of the different actors. Scientific Production, Structural Analysis, Scientometric Analysis, Elites, Inter-Organizational Analysis.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aron, R. (1961), “Classe sociale, classe politique, classe dirigeante”, Annales Européennes de Sociologie, I, pp.260–281.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and power in social life, New York, J. Whiley.

Bosk, C.L. (1979), Forgive and remember. Managing the medical failure, Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press.

Bourricaud, F. (1961), Esquisse d'une théorie de l'autorité, Paris, Plon.

Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Burt, R.S. (1995), “Le capital social, les trous structuraux, et l'entrepreneur”, Revue Française de Sociologie, XXXVI, pp.599–628.

Callon, M. et Leydesdorff, L. (1987), “La recherche française est-elle en bonne santé?”, La recherche, no 186, mars.

Callon, M., Courtial, J.P. et Penan, H. (1993), La scientométrie, Paris, PUF.

Crane, D. (1972), Invisible Colleges, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

10.

Crozier, M. et Friedberg, E. (1977), L'acteur et le système, Paris, Seuil.

11.

Garfield, E. (1970), “Citation indexing for studying science”, Nature, 227, pp. 669–672.

12.

Garfield, E. (1972), “Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation”, Science, 178, pp. 471–479.

13.

Kellerhals, J., Coenen-Huther, J. et Modak, M. (1988), Figures de l'équité: la construction des normes de justice dans les groupes”, Paris, PUF.

14.

Latour, B. et Woolgar, S. (1979), Laboratory life. The construction of scientific facts, Sage. Trad: La vie de laboratoire. La production des faits scientifiques, Paris, La Découverte, 1988.

15.

Law, J. (1989), “Le laboratoire et ses réseaux” in Callon, M. , La science et ses réseaux. Genèse et circulation des fait scientifiques, Paris, La Découverte, 1989.

16.

Lazar, P. (1989), Les explorateurs de la santé, Paris, O. Jacob.

17.

Lazega, E. (1994), “Analyse de réseaux et sociologie des organisations”, Revue Française de Sociologie, XXXV.

18.

Lazega, E. (1999), “Le phénomène collégial: une théorie structurale de l'action collective entre pairs”, Revue Française de Sociologie, XL-4.

19.

Lazega, E. (2001), The collégial phenomenon. The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership, New York, Oxford University Press.

20.

Lazega, E. et Van Duijn, M. (1997), “Position in formal structure, personal characteristics and choices of advisors in a law firm: A logistic regression model for dyadic network data”, Social Networks, 19, pp. 375–397.

21.

Lazega, E. et Mounier, L. (2001), “Interdependant entrepreneurs and the social mechanisms of their cooparation: The research program for structural economic sociology in a society of organizations” in Favereau, O. et Lazega, E. (eds), Conventions and structures in economic organization: Markets, networks and organizations, Edward Elgar Publishing.

22.

Lazega, E. et Pattison, P. (1999), “Mutiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations: A case study”, Social Networks, 21, pp. 67–90.

23.

Lin, N. (1995), Social resources and social action, New York, Cambridge University Press.

24.

Lotka, J.A. (1926), “The frequency distribution of scientific productivity”, Journal of Washington Academy of Science, 16 (12), pp. 317–323.

25.

Pao, L.M. (1985), “Lotka's Law: A testing procedure”, Information Processing and Management, 21, 4, pp. 305–320.

26.

Pattison, P. et Wasserman, S. (2000), “Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: II. Multivariate relations”, Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology.

27.

Pocard, M. (1998), “Le facteur d'impact des revues médicales: jugement de Salomon ou danse des sept voiles?”, Annales de chirurgie, 52, 7.

28.

Stofer, R. (2001), Gestion de la concurrence dans un système d'échange semi-collégial. Les réseaux de conseils, de copublication et de citation au sein de l'élite des chercheurs français en cancérologie de 1996 à 1998, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Lille 1.

29.

Strauss, D. et Ikeda, M. (1990), “Pseudolikelihood estimation for social networks”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85: 204 12.

30.

Zuckerman, H. et Merton, R.K. (1971), “Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system”, Minerva, 9.

31.

Zuckerman, H. et Merton, R.K. (1972), “Age, aging and age structure in science” in Riley, M. , Johnson, M. et Foner, A. , A sociology of age stratification, New York, Russel Sage Fondation.