史学的历时性研究

摘要：

人文学科通常被社会学家描述为学者之间相互依赖性低，任务不确定性高。根据富克斯的科学变革理论，随着时间的推移，这导致了知识和社会的分裂，因为新的学术在缺乏共同统一理论的情况下积累起来。我们在这里考虑一组专业的历史学科，并测量其书目耦合网络的连接特性随着时间的推移，以评估是否确实发生了分裂。我们使用参考重叠和文本相似性来构建网络。结果表明，随着时间的推移，参考重叠网络的连接性逐渐稳定下降，而文本相似性网络是稳定的。作者书目耦合网络也显示出连接性下降的迹象，在没有增加合作的倾向。我们推测，尽管历史学家之间的联系逐渐减弱，如参考文献所描绘的那样，新的学术可能会通过共同的词汇和叙述不断整合。这将支持我们的信念，引文只是一种文献计量学数据考虑-甚至可能是次要的-当研究人文学科时，而文本应该发挥更突出的作用。

英文摘要：

The humanities are often characterized by sociologists as having a low mutual dependence among scholars and high task uncertainty. According to Fuchs' theory of scientific change, this leads over time to intellectual and social fragmentation, as new scholarship accumulates in the absence of shared unifying theories. We consider here a set of specialisms in the discipline of history and measure the connectivity properties of their bibliographic coupling networks over time, in order to assess whether fragmentation is indeed occurring. We construct networks using both reference overlap and textual similarity. It is shown that the connectivity of reference overlap networks is gradually and steadily declining over time, whilst that of textual similarity networks is stable. Author bibliographic coupling networks also show signs of a decline in connectivity, in the absence of an increasing propensity for collaborations. We speculate that, despite the gradual weakening of ties among historians as mapped by references, new scholarship might be continually integrated through shared vocabularies and narratives. This would support our belief that citations are but one kind of bibliometric data to consider --- perhaps even of secondary importance --- when studying the humanities, while text should play a more prominent role.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。