This article explores the interrelationships between the interdisciplinary specialties of the
diffusion of innovations and technology transfer. Bibliometric data were utilized to examine the
formal communication structures of these two specialties and to identify how and to what extent
their literatures were related. A modified author co-citation analysis was performed to identify
the interrelationships among the works of scholars in these two specialties. Co-citation analysis
has been used to study other research fields and to identify with considerable accuracy the membership of research specialties. The article identifies the ideational links or cognitive relations between the works of the diffusion of innovations and the technology transfer scholars.
Rip and Courtial (1984) stated that co-citation, like other scientometric techniques, is useful for
analyzing developments in science "provided one is prepared to take the content of scientific
articles into account" (p. 381). Accordingly, highly cited documents are identified as exemplars
and used to interpret the data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Alestalo, M. (1977). Interdisciplinarity in the light of the development of science and actual research work. In J. Farkas (Ed.), Sociology of science and research: Papers of the International Sociology of Science Conference in Budapest, September 7-9. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
3.
Allen, T. J. (1966). Performance of information channels in the transfer of technological information. Industrial Management Review, 8, 87-98.
4.
Allen, T. J. (1969). The differential performance of information channels in the transfer of technology. In W. H. Gruber & G. G. Marquis (Eds.), Factors in the transfer of technology (pp. 137-154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 1, 14-21.
6.
American men and women of science: The social and behavioral sciences (12th ed.) (2 vols.). ( 1973). New York: Bowker.
7.
Beal, G. M., Dissanayake, W., & Konoshima, S. (Eds.). (1986). Knowledge generation, exchange, and utilization . Boulder, CO: Westview Press .
8.
Beshers, J. M., & Laumann, E. O. (1967). Social distance: A network approach . American Sociological Review, 32, 225-236.
9.
Blashfield, R. K. (1977). On the equivalence of four software programs for performing hierarchial cluster analysis. Psychometrika, 42, 429-458.
10.
Borgman, C. L, & Schement, J. R. (1988, May-June). Communication research and information science: Models of convergence. Paper presented at the Meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans.
11.
Cancian, F. (1967). Stratification and risk-taking: A theory tested on agricultural innovation. American Sociological Review, 32, 912-927.
12.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E. , & Menzel, H. ( 1966 ). Medical innovation. Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill.
13.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion ofknowledge in scientific communities. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
14.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
Douds, C. F. (1971). The state of the art in the study of technology transfer: A brief survey. R&D Management, 1, 125-131.
16.
Everitt, B. (1980). Cluster analysis . New York: Halstead.
17.
Feller, I. (1979). Three coigns on diffusion. Knowledge, 1, 313-320.
18.
Fliegel, F. C., & Kivlin, J. E. (1966). Attributes of innovations as factors in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 235-248.
19.
Ganz, C. (1981). Linkages between knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization. In R. F. Rich (Ed.), The knowledge cycle (pp. 185-211). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities . New York: Wiley.
21.
Garvey, W. D., Lin, N., & Nelson, C. E. (1971). A comparison of scientific communication behavior of social and physical scientists. International Social ScienceJournal, 23, 256-272.
22.
Gertsberg, P. G., & Allen, T. J. (1968). Criteria used by research and development engineers in selection of an information source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 272-279.
23.
Havelock, R. G. (1969). Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor, MI: Crusk/Institute for Social Research .
24.
Havelock, R. G. (1986). The knowledge perspective: Definition and scope of a new study domain. In G. M. Beal, W. Dissanayake , & S. Konoshima (Eds.), Knowledge generation, exchange, and utilization (pp. 11-34). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
25.
Herner, S., & Herner, M. (1967). Information needs and uses in science and technology. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2, 1-34.
26.
Katz, E. (1961). The social itinerary of technical change: Two studies on the diffusion of innovation. Human Organization, 20, 70-82.
27.
Katz, E., Levin, M., & Hamilton, H. (1963). Traditions of research on the diffusion of innovations. American Sociological Review, 28, 237-253.
28.
Kelly, P., & Kranzberg, M. (1975). Technological innovation: A critical review of current knowledge: Vol. 1. The ecology of innovation. Atlanta: Advanced Technology and Science Study Group.
29.
King, L. J. (1969). Discriminatory analysis of urban-growth patterns in Ontario and Quebec. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 57, 566-578.
30.
Klein, J. T. (1985). The evolution of a body of knowledge. Knowledge, 7, 117-142.
31.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Lenoir, T. (1979). Quantitative foundations for the sociology of science: On linking blockmodeling with co-citation analysis. Social Studies of Science, 9, 455-480.
34.
Lin, G., Garvey, W. D., & Nelson, C. E. (1970). A study of the communication structure of science. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers . Lexington Books.
35.
Livingston, S. M. (1987). The implicit representation of characters in Dallas. Human Communication Research, 13, 399-420.
36.
Marsh, J. G. (Ed. (1965). Handbook of organizations. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
37.
Massie, J. L. (1965). Management theory. In J. G. Marsh (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 387-422). Skokie, IL : Rand McNally.
38.
McFarland, D. D. (1970). Intragenerational social mobility as a market process: Including a time-stationary Markovian model that explains observed declines in mobility rates over time. American Sociological Review, 35, 463-476.
39.
Mohr, L. B. (1969). The determinants of innovation in organizations.American Political Science Review, 63, 111-126.
40.
Pinard, M. (1967). Poverty and political movements. Social Problems, 15, 250-263.
41.
Pinard, M. (1968). Mass society and political movements: A new formulation. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 682-690.
42.
Rich, R. F. (Ed.). (1981). The knowledge cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
Rip, A., & Courtial, J.-P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6, 381-400.
44.
Rosenberg, V (1967). Factors affecting preferences of industrial personnel for information gathering methods . Information Storage and Retrieval, 3, 119.
45.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press .
46.
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Models of knowledge transfer: Critical perspectives. In G. M. Beal, W. Dissanayake, & S. Konoshima (Eds.), Knowledge generation, exchange, and utilization (pp. 37-60). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
47.
Rogers, E. M., with F. F. Shoemaker.Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
48.
Romesburg, H. C. (1984). Cluster analysis for researchers. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning.
49.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1983). SUGI supplemental library user's guide (Version 5 ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
50.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1985). SAS user's guide: Statistics (Version 5 ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
51.
Shapero, A. (1965). Diffusion of innovations resulting from research: Implications for research program management. In M. C. Yovits, D. M. Gilford, R. H. Wilcox , E. Stavely, & H. D. Lerner (Eds.), Research program effectiveness . New York: Wiley.
52.
Small, H. G. (1981). The relationship of information science to the social sciences: A co-citation analysis. Information Processing and Management, 17, 39-50.
53.
Small, H. G., & Garfield, E. (1985). The geography of science: Disciplinary and national mapping. Journal of Information Science, 11, 147-159.
54.
Social Sciences Citation Index: 1966-1970 Five Year Cumulation (Parts 1-4 . (1979). Philadelphia : Institute for Scientific Information.
55.
Social Sciences Citation Index: 1971 Annual (Parts 1-2. (1975 ). Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
56.
Social Sciences Citation Index: 1972 Annual (Parts 1-2. (1974). Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information .
57.
Tornatzky, L. G., Eveland, J. D., Boylan, M. G., Hetzner, W. A., Johnson, E. C., Roitman, D., & Schneider, J. (1983). The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
58.
Troldahl, V. C. (1966). A field test of a modified 2-step flow communication model. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30, 609-623.
59.
Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63, 880-899.
60.
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. G. (1981). Author co-citation: A literature of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32, 163-171.
61.
White, H. D., & Griffith, B. G. (1982). Authors as markers of intellectual space: Co-citation in studies of science, technology, and society. Journal of Documentation, 38, 255-272.
62.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.
