Öz

This study examines the interdisciplinary publication patterns of Information and Document Management (IDM) / Information and Records Management researchers in Turkey, determining whether their academic publishing trends align with global tendencies in the field. A data-driven and reproducible research methodology was adopted. Journal articles of 100 IDM researchers from 13 active universities in Turkey were compiled from the YÖK Academic database. Additionally, the publications were analyzed using respective journals obtained from the TR Dizin database. Word2Vec was utilized to identify semantic relationships, UMAP was used for visualization, and the Radius of Gyration (ROG) was computed to express researchers’ interdisciplinary tendencies quantitatively. T-tests and ANOVA were applied to assess differences based on demographic variables. The findings reveal that the average ROG value of IDM researchers in Turkey is 7.23, indicating a general tendency to transcend disciplinary boundaries. No significant differences in interdisciplinary tendencies were found based on academic rank, gender, or institution. The study deepens the understanding of the interdisciplinary nature of the IDM field, introduces methodological innovations through advanced data analysis methods, and contributes to the literature by creating a unique dataset. Future research should explore interdisciplinary tendencies in the IDM field by utilizing more extensive datasets and conducting international comparative analyses.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kütüphanecilik ve Bilgi Bilim, interdisipliner araştırma, dönme yarıçapı, UMAP, Word2vec, yayın örüntüsü

Referanslar

  1. Adam Holland, G. (2008). Information science: An interdisciplinary effort? Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844132
  2. Adams, J., ve Szomszor, M. (2022). A converging global research system. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 715-731. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00208
  3. Arafat, S., Buckland, M., Feinberg, M., Ibekwe‐SanJuan, F., Shaw, R., ve Warner, J. (2014). Pluri, multi‐, trans‐ meta‐ and interdisciplinary nature of LIS. Does it really matter? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101010
  4. Aram, J. D. (2004). Concepts of interdisciplinarity: Configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relations, 57(4), 379-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043893
  5. Arslantekin, S. (2024). Disiplinlerarası bakış ile bilgi ve belge yönetimi. İçinde P. Bezirci ve I. Sert (Ed.), Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılında Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Teknolojisinde Güncel Yaklaşımlar (ss. 833-851). Istanbul University Press. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/ SS53.2024.015.32
  6. Austin, T. R., Rauch, A., Blau, H., Yudice, G., Van Den Berg, S., Robinson, L. S., Henkel, J., Murray, T., Schoenfield, M., Traub, V., ve De Marco Torgovnick, M. (1996). Defining Interdisciplinarity. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 111(2), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/463106
  7. Bates, M. J. (1999). The invisible substrate of information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10974571(1999)50:12<1043::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-X
  8. Bates, M. J. (2007). Defining the information disciplines in encyclopedia development. Information Research, 12(4). https://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis29.html
  9. Bawden, D. (2007). Organised complexity, meaning and understanding: An approach to a unified view of information for information science. Aslib Proceedings, 59(4/5), 307-327. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530710817546
  10. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., ve Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993-1022.
  11. Bonaccorsi, A., Melluso, N., ve Massucci, F. A. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: A topic modeling approach. Scientometrics, 127(12), 6961-6991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04368-9
  12. Bonnici, L. J., Subramaniam, M. M., ve Burnett, K. (2009). Everything old is new again: The evolution of library and information science education from LIS to iField. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 263-274.
  13. Buckland, M. (2012). What kind of science can information science be? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21656
  14. Burnett, K., ve Bonnici, L. J. (2013). Rhizomes in the iField: What does it mean to be an iSchool? KO Knowledge Organization, 40(6), 408-413. https://doi.org/10.5771/09437444-2013-6-408
  15. Carayol, N., ve Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70-79. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154405781776355
  16. Chang, Y., ve Huang, M. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.21649
  17. Chang, Y.-W. (2018). Exploring the interdisciplinary characteristics of library and information science (LIS) from the perspective of interdisciplinary LIS authors. Library & Information Science Research, 40(2), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lisr.2018.06.004
  18. Cronin, B. (2012). The waxing and waning of a field: Reflections on information studies education. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 17(3), n3.
  19. Darbellay, F. (2015). Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures, 65, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.009
  20. Evans, E. D. (2016). Measuring Interdisciplinarity Using Text. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 2, 237802311665414. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116654147
  21. Frodeman, R. (2011). Interdisciplinary research and academic sustainability: Managing knowledge in an age of accountability. Environmental Conservation, 38(2), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000038
  22. Frodeman, R., ve Mitcham, C. (2007). New directions in interdisciplinarity: Broad, deep, and critical. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 27(6), 506-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467607308284
  23. Glänzel, W., ve Debackere, K. (2022). Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those. Scientometrics, 127(9), 5551-5569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04133-4
  24. González, M. C., Hidalgo, C. A., ve Barabási, A.-L. (2008). Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature, 453(7196), 779-782. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06958
  25. Gowanlock, M., ve Gazan, R. (2013). Assessing researcher interdisciplinarity: A case study of the University of Hawaii NASA Astrobiology Institute. Scientometrics, 94(1), 133-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0765-y
  26. Hjørland, B. (2014). Information science and its core concepts: Levels of disagreement. Içinde F. Ibekwe-SanJuan ve T. M. Dousa (Ed.), Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge (C. 34, ss. 205-235). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/97894-007-6973-1_9
  27. Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., ve Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2009.09.011
  28. Karakaş, H. S. (2014). Disiplinlerarası yaklaşımlar ve bilgi ve belge yönetimindeki yansımaları. İçinde N. Özel ve N. Er-Koçoğlu (Ed.), Ankara Üniversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü 60.yıl armağan kitabı (ss. 65-80). Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  29. Kayaoğlu, H. D. (2019). Türkiye’de Kütüphane ve Bilgibilimi Araştırmalarında Kuram Kullanımı: Bir İçerik Analizi. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 33(4), 249-266.
  30. Keseroğlu, H. S. (2010). Bilginin bilgisi: Kütüphane ve bilgibilim kuramı sorunsalı. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 24(4), 685-704.
  31. Koch, T., ve Vanderstraeten, R. (2021). Journal editors and journal indexes: Internationalization pressures in the semi‐periphery of the world of science. Learned Publishing, 34(4), 519-527. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1390
  32. Kumar, S., Zöphel, C., Martius, A., Cabadag, R., Plewnia, F., Pruditsch, N., Sakowski, B. A., ve Möst, D. (2019). Stronger together—A framework for measuring interdisciplinary understanding. WIREs Energy and Environment, 8(6), e348. https://doi.org/10.1002/ wene.348
  33. Larivière, V., ve Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21226
  34. Lau, L., ve Pasquini, M. W. (2004). Meeting grounds: Perceiving and defining interdisciplinarity across the arts, social sciences and sciences. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1179/030801804225012437
  35. Lopatovska, I., ve Ransom, E. (2016). The state of L-Schools: Intellectual diversity and faculty composition. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(1), 18-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614533718
  36. Mansilla Boix, V. (2006). Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: An empirical exploration. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154406781776075
  37. McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N., ve Großberger, L. (2018). UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(29), 861. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00861
  38. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., ve Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.
  39. Morillo, F., Bordons, M., ve Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237-1249. https://doi.org/10.1002/ asi.10326
  40. Mugabushaka, A.-M., Kyriakou, A., ve Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: The potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192016-1865-x
  41. Okamura, K. (2019). Interdisciplinarity revisited: Evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019 0352-4
  42. Özdemirci, F. (2017). Belge ve arşiv yönetiminde yeni ufuklar ve kuramsal yaklaşımlar. İçinde B. Yılmaz, M. Dişli, S. Öztemiz, ve T. Baş (Ed.), Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi: Kuramsal yaklaşımlar. Hiperlink.
  43. Pham, H.-S., Vancraeynest, B., Poelmans, H., Vancauwenbergh, S., ve Ali-Eldin, A. (2023). Identifying interdisciplinary research in research projects. Scientometrics, 128(10), 5521-5544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04810-6
  44. Pilkington, A., ve Liston‐Heyes, C. (1999). Is production and operations management a discipline? A citation/co‐citation study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(1), 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910244188
  45. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., David Roessner, J., ve Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0071700-5
  46. Porter, A. L., ve Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
  47. Prebor, G. (2010). Analysis of the interdisciplinary nature of library and information science. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(4), 256-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000610380820
  48. Raimbault, J. (2019). Exploration of an interdisciplinary scientific landscape. Scientometrics, 119(2), 617-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03090-3
  49. Rhoten, D., ve Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001
  50. Saracevic, T. (1999). Information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(12), 1051-1063. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1051::AIDASI2>3.0.CO;2-Z
  51. Sayama, H., ve Akaishi, J. (2012). Characterizing interdisciplinarity of researchers and research topics using web search engines. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38747. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038747
  52. Shu, F., Larivière, V., Mongeon, P., Julien, C.-A., ve Piper, A. (2016). On the evolution of library and information science doctoral dissertation topics in North America (1960–2013). Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 57(2), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.57.2.131
  53. Shu, F., ve Mongeon, P. (2016). The evolution of iSchool movement (1988-2013): A bibliometric view. Education for Information, 32(4), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.3233/ EFI-160982
  54. Slonim, N., Friedman, N., ve Tishby, N. (2002). Unsupervised document classification using sequential information maximization. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1145/564376.564401
  55. Song, C., Koren, T., Wang, P., ve Barabási, A.-L. (2010). Modelling the scaling properties of human mobility. Nature Physics, 6(10), 818-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1760
  56. Sugimoto, C. R. (2009). Proposal and application of the interdisciplinarity borrowing index: Determining the degrees of interdisciplinarity of ILS dissertations. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 46(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2009.1450460392
  57. Sugimoto, C. R., Ni, C., Russell, T. G., ve Bychowski, B. (2011). Academic genealogy as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: An examination of dissertation networks in Library and Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(9), 1808-1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21568
  58. Tonta, Y. (2012). Kütüphanecilik ve bilgibilim eğitiminde gelişmeler ve program değişiklikleri. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 26(2), 227-261. http://www.tk.org.tr/index.php/ TK/article/view/314
  59. Torunlar, M. (2020). Belge/Bilgi Yönetimi disiplininde olası paradigma değişiklikleri: Yeni Bir rota teklifi. Bilgi Yönetimi, 3(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.777442
  60. Vakkari, P. (2024). What characterizes LIS as a fragmenting discipline? Journal of Documentation, 80(7), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2023-0207
  61. Van Noorden, R. (2015). Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature, 525(7569), 306-307. https://doi.org/10.1038/525306a
  62. Vienni-Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., Lyall, C., ve Pohl, C. (2022). Embracing heterogeneity: Why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Science and Public Policy, 49(6), 865-877. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac034
  63. Wang, X., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., Li, R., ve Pang, J. (2017). Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: Detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2023-2039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2348-4
  64. Wiggins, A., ve Sawyer, S. (2012). Intellectual diversity and the faculty composition of iSchools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21619
  65. Wu, D., He, D., Jiang, J., Dong, W., ve Vo, K. T. (2012). The state of iSchools: An analysis of academic research and graduate education. Journal of Information Science, 38(1), 1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551511426247
  66. Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., ve D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135095
  67. Zhuge, H. (2006). Discovery of knowledge flow in science. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1145/1125944.1125948

Lisans

Telif Hakkı (c) 2024 Yazar(lar). Açık erişimli bu makale, orijinal çalışmaya uygun şekilde atıfta bulunulması koşuluyla, herhangi bir ortamda veya formatta sınırsız kullanım, dağıtım ve çoğaltmaya izin veren Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) altında dağıtılmıştır.

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Yayla, K. (2024). Türkiye’de Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Araştırmacılarının İnterdisipliner Yayın Kalıpları: Disiplin Sınırlarını Aşmak. Bilgi Dünyası, 25(2), 256-288. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2024.757