全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要


Top-Down Research, Generalists, and Google Scholar: Does Google Scholar Facilitate Breakthrough Research?

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1102629, PP. 1-8

Subject Areas: Library, Intelligence and Philology, Information Science, Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases

Keywords: Abduction, Reverse Entailment, Top-Down Research, Interdisciplinary Research, Google Scholar

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract

Researchers long ago demonstrated that top-down, inference-based approaches to research have comfortably co-existed with more traditional bottom-up, hypotheses-driven research. Yet most faculty omit any mention of top-down approaches in direct instruction or training of students, despite these approaches being both relatively common, occasionally necessary, and considerably more efficient than traditional bottom-up research. The growing sophistication of search engine algorithms, like those used by Google Scholar, makes possible highly efficient, inter-disciplinary top-down research. This article explores both the existence and operation of top-down approaches to research in the sciences and the ways in which Google Scholar could work with top-down research strategies to transform collaboration and inter-disciplinary research, particularly in the sciences.

Cite this paper

Douglas, Y. (2016). Top-Down Research, Generalists, and Google Scholar: Does Google Scholar Facilitate Breakthrough Research?. Open Access Library Journal, 3, e2629. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102629.

References

[1]  Fleck, L. (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Trenn, T., Trans.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[2]  Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[3]  Monmaney, T. (1993) Marshall’s Lunch. The New Yorker, 20 September, 64-72.
[4]  Blaser, M. (2005) An Endangered Species in the Stomach. Scientific American, 292, 38-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0205-38
[5]  Weintraub, P. (2010) The Discover Interview: Barry Marshall. Discover, 31, 66-74.
[6]  Doolittle, R.F. (1997) A Bug with Excess Gastric Avidity. Nature, 388, 515-516.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/41418
[7]  Marshall, B., Warren, J.R., Blincow, E., Phillips, M., Goodwin, C.S., Murray, R., et al. (1988) Prospective Double- Blind Trial of Duodenal Ulcer Relapse after Eradication of Campylobacter pylori. The Lancet, 332, 1437-1442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(88)90929-4
[8]  Peirce, C.S. (1877) The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12 November, 1-15.
[9]  Peirce, C.S. (1974) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol. 3, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[10]  Frankfurt, H.G. (1958) Peirce’s Notion of Abduction. The Journal of Philosophy, 55, 593-597.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2021966
[11]  Medawar, P.B. (1982) Pluto’s Republic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[12]  Johnson, S. (2006) The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic—And How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World. Riverhead, New York.
[13]  Kell, D.B. and Oliver, S.G. (2004) Here Is the Evidence, Now What Is the Hypothesis? The Complementary Roles of Inductive and Hypothesis-Driven Science in the Post-Genomic Era. Bioessays, 26, 99-105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.10385
[14]  Josephson, J.R. (2000) Smart Inductive Generalizations Are Abductions. In: Flach, P.A. and Kakas, A.C., Eds., Abduction and Induction: Essays in Their Relation and Integration, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 31-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0606-3_2
[15]  Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge and Keagan Paul, London.
[16]  Dunbar, K. (1993) Concept Discovery in a Scientific Domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397-434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1703_3
[17]  Dunbar, K. (2000) How Scientists Think in the Real World: Implications for Science Education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 49-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7
[18]  Hargadon, A.B. (1998) Firms as Knowledge Brokers. California Management Review, 40, 209-227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165951
[19]  Hargadon, A.B. (2003) How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How Companies Innovate. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge.
[20]  Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716-749.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393655
[21]  Hargadon, A.B. and Douglas, Y. (2001) When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476-501.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094872
[22]  Suresh, S., Sujatha, M., Mishra, G., Hanumanthu, G.R., Suresh, M., et al. (2005) Proteomic Resources: Integrating Biomedical Information in Humans. Gene, 364, 13-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2005.07.021
[23]  Klahr, D., Fay, A.L. and Dunbar, K. (1993) Heuristics for Scientific Experimentation: A Developmental Study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1003
[24]  Simon, H.A. (2000) Observations on the Science of Science Learning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 115-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00055-6
[25]  Furukawa, K. (1998) On the Completion of the Most Specific Hypothesis Computation in Inverse Entailment for Mutual Recursion. In: Arikawa, S. and Motoda, H., Eds., Discovery Science: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 315-325.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49292-5_28
[26]  Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1979) Metaphorical Imprecision and the “Top-Down” Research Strategy. In: Ortony, A., Ed., Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 420-436.
[27]  Simon, H.A. (1956) Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
[28]  Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[29]  Gigerenzer, G. and Goldstein, D.G. (1996) Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-689.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
[30]  Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983) Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[31]  Jacsó, P. (2008) Google Scholar Revisited. Online Information Review, 32, 102-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520810866010
[32]  Noruzi, A. (2005) Google Scholar: The New Generation of Citation Indexes. Libri, 55, 170-180.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2005.170
[33]  Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. and Wei, L. (2006) Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7-11.
[34]  Adlington, J. and Benda, C. (2005) Checking under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10, 135-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_12
[35]  Hodge, D.R. and Lacasse, J.R. (2011) Ranking Disciplinary Journals with the Google Scholar H-Index: A New Tool for Constructing Cases for Tenure, Promotion, and Other Professional Decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47, 579-596.
[36]  Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus, E., Asher, A. and Wrede, C. (2006) The Depth and Breadth of Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6, 127-141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0026
[37]  Cathcart, R. and Roberts, A. (2005) Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10, 167-176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_15
[38]  York, M.C. (2005) Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the Academic Library. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10, 117-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_11
[39]  Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[40]  Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
[41]  Woolgar, S. (1988) Science, the Very Idea. Tavistock Publications, London.
[42]  Altman, L.K. (1996) The Ingelfinger Rule, Embargoes, and Journal Peer Review—Part 2. The Lancet, 347, 1459-1463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91689-X
[43]  Berners-Lee, T., Cailliau, R., Pellow, N. and Secret, A. (1993) The World Wide Web Initiative.
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html
[44]  Koffel, J., Magarrell, K., Raber, E. and Thormodson, K. (2013) Liaison Connection: Building a Better Community. College & Research Libraries News, 74, 534-536.
[45]  Leshner, A.I. (2004) Science at the Leading Edge. Science, 303, 729-749.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.303.5659.729
[46]  Collins, R. (2002) Credential Inflation and the Future of Universities. In: Brint, S.G., Ed., The Future of the City of Intellect: The Changing American University, Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 23-46.
[47]  Levinson, W. and Linzer, M. (2002) What Is an Academic General Internist? JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 2045-2048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.16.2045
[48]  Custodio, C., Ferreira, M.A. and Matos, P. (2013) Generalists versus Specialists: Lifetime Work Experience and Chief Executive Officer Pay. Journal of Financial Economics, 108, 471-492.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.01.001

Full-Text


comments powered by Disqus