Mapping Literature with Networks: An Application to Redistricting

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Adeline Lo, Devin Judge-Lord, Kyler Hudson, Kenneth R. Mayer
{"title":"Mapping Literature with Networks: An Application to Redistricting","authors":"Adeline Lo, Devin Judge-Lord, Kyler Hudson, Kenneth R. Mayer","doi":"10.1017/pan.2023.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Understanding the gaps and connections across existing theories and findings is a perennial challenge in scientific research. Systematically reviewing scholarship is especially challenging for researchers who may lack domain expertise, including junior scholars or those exploring new substantive territory. Conversely, senior scholars may rely on long-standing assumptions and social networks that exclude new research. In both cases, ad hoc literature reviews hinder accumulation of knowledge. Scholars are rarely systematic in selecting relevant prior work or then identifying patterns across their sample. To encourage systematic, replicable, and transparent methods for assessing literature, we propose an accessible network-based framework for reviewing scholarship. In our method, we consider a literature as a network of recurring concepts (nodes) and theorized relationships among them (edges). Network statistics and visualization allow researchers to see patterns and offer reproducible characterizations of assertions about the major themes in existing literature. Critically, our approach is systematic and powerful but also low cost; it requires researchers to enter relationships they observe in prior studies into a simple spreadsheet—a task accessible to new and experienced researchers alike. Our open-source R package enables researchers to leverage powerful network analysis while minimizing software-specific knowledge. We demonstrate this approach by reviewing redistricting literature.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2023.4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Understanding the gaps and connections across existing theories and findings is a perennial challenge in scientific research. Systematically reviewing scholarship is especially challenging for researchers who may lack domain expertise, including junior scholars or those exploring new substantive territory. Conversely, senior scholars may rely on long-standing assumptions and social networks that exclude new research. In both cases, ad hoc literature reviews hinder accumulation of knowledge. Scholars are rarely systematic in selecting relevant prior work or then identifying patterns across their sample. To encourage systematic, replicable, and transparent methods for assessing literature, we propose an accessible network-based framework for reviewing scholarship. In our method, we consider a literature as a network of recurring concepts (nodes) and theorized relationships among them (edges). Network statistics and visualization allow researchers to see patterns and offer reproducible characterizations of assertions about the major themes in existing literature. Critically, our approach is systematic and powerful but also low cost; it requires researchers to enter relationships they observe in prior studies into a simple spreadsheet—a task accessible to new and experienced researchers alike. Our open-source R package enables researchers to leverage powerful network analysis while minimizing software-specific knowledge. We demonstrate this approach by reviewing redistricting literature.
用网络绘制文献:在重划中的应用
理解现有理论和发现之间的差距和联系是科学研究中的一个长期挑战。对于缺乏专业知识的研究人员,包括初级学者或探索新的实质性领域的研究人员,系统地审查学术成果尤其具有挑战性。相反,资深学者可能依赖于长期存在的假设和排除新研究的社会网络。在这两种情况下,特别的文献综述阻碍了知识的积累。学者们很少系统地选择相关的先前工作,然后在他们的样本中识别模式。为了鼓励系统的、可复制的和透明的评估文献的方法,我们提出了一个可访问的基于网络的框架来审查奖学金。在我们的方法中,我们将文献视为反复出现的概念(节点)和它们之间的理论化关系(边)的网络。网络统计和可视化使研究人员能够看到模式,并对现有文献中的主要主题的断言提供可重复的特征描述。关键是,我们的方法是系统的、强大的,但成本也很低;它要求研究人员将他们在以前的研究中观察到的关系输入到一个简单的电子表格中,这是一个对新手和有经验的研究人员都可以访问的任务。我们的开源R包使研究人员能够利用强大的网络分析,同时最大限度地减少软件特定知识。我们通过回顾重新划分选区的文献来证明这种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信