Quantifying the "Goodness" of Library History Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Library History/Libraries & Culture

Andrew B. Wertheimer
{"title":"Quantifying the \"Goodness\" of Library History Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Journal of Library History/Libraries & Culture","authors":"Andrew B. Wertheimer","doi":"10.1353/LAC.2005.0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Library historians use primarily qualitative research methods, unlike most in LIS, who adopt social science research methods. This contrast becomes problematic when evaluating the goodness of historical research. This article briefly explores this conflict and crosses the methodological divide by adapting both bibliometrics and qualitative approaches to examine four volumes from the Journal of Library History (1967, 1977) and its successor, Libraries & Culture (1987, 1997), in order to observe transitions. The sample, 497 citations from 53 articles, was tabulated by age, self-citation, and other factors to examine the goodness of historical research.","PeriodicalId":81853,"journal":{"name":"Libraries & culture","volume":"40 1","pages":"267 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/LAC.2005.0060","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Libraries & culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/LAC.2005.0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Library historians use primarily qualitative research methods, unlike most in LIS, who adopt social science research methods. This contrast becomes problematic when evaluating the goodness of historical research. This article briefly explores this conflict and crosses the methodological divide by adapting both bibliometrics and qualitative approaches to examine four volumes from the Journal of Library History (1967, 1977) and its successor, Libraries & Culture (1987, 1997), in order to observe transitions. The sample, 497 citations from 53 articles, was tabulated by age, self-citation, and other factors to examine the goodness of historical research.
量化图书馆史研究的“善”:《图书馆史》/《图书馆与文化》期刊的文献计量学研究
图书馆历史学家主要使用定性研究方法,不像大多数美国图书馆的历史学家采用社会科学研究方法。在评价历史研究的好坏时,这种对比就成了问题。本文简要探讨了这一冲突,并通过采用文献计量学和定性方法来检查图书馆历史杂志(1967年,1977年)及其后续图书馆与文化杂志(1987年,1997年)的四卷,以观察转变,从而跨越了方法上的鸿沟。样本,53篇文章的497次引用,按年龄、自我引用和其他因素制成表格,以检验历史研究的好坏。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信