图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2017 , Vol. 61 >Issue 3: 131 - 139

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.03.017

综述述评

基于文献计量的科学创造力评价研究综述

  • 王军辉 ,
  • 谭宗颖
展开
  • 1. 中国科学院文献情报中心 北京 100190;
    2. 中国科学院大学 北京 100049;
    3. 中国医学科学院医学信息研究所 北京 100020
王军辉(ORCID:0000-0003-2986-2985),中国医学科学院医学信息研究所助理研究员,中国科学院文献情报中心博士研究生,E-mail:informatics@imicams.ac.cn;谭宗颖(ORCID:0000-0003-3945-7174),研究员,博士生导师

收稿日期: 2016-10-10

  修回日期: 2017-01-01

  网络出版日期: 2017-02-05

基金资助

本文系中国科协创新战略研究项目"我国重点领域创新力评估研究"（项目编号：2015ZCYJ4-05）研究成果之一。

收起

A Review of Bibliometric Evaluation Research of Scientific Creativity

  • Wang Junhui ,
  • Tan Zongying
Expand
  • 1. National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190;
    2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049;
    3. Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100020

Received date: 2016-10-10

  Revised date: 2017-01-01

  Online published: 2017-02-05

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义]创造力是创新的前提和基础，创造力评价是创造力研究的核心内容。面向科研领域，从情报学视角调研利用文献计量方法评价科学创造力的研究现状，为后续研究提供参考和借鉴。[方法/过程]基于国内外文献调研，从基本概念、应用发展历程及独立评价指标比较分析几个方面介绍和评述文献计量评价科学创造力的发展情况。[结果/结论]利用文献计量手段对科学创造力进行评价，为情报学学科参与科技创新提供了新的切入点，无论是国内还是国外，相关研究均有待深入，后续可从理论探索、知识评价、合理评价几个方向进行拓展。

关键词： 文献计量; 创造力; 科学创造力; 新颖性; 有用性

本文引用格式

王军辉 , 谭宗颖 . 基于文献计量的科学创造力评价研究综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017 , 61(3) : 131 -139 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.03.017

Abstract

[Purpose/significance] Creativity is the precondition and foundation of innovation,and creativity evaluation is the core component of creativity research. This paper, from the perspective of Library and Information Science, aims to investigate the research status of bibliometric evaluation of scientific creativity, and provide reference for future studies.[Method/process] Based on relevant literature, this paper describes and reviews the basic situation of bibliometric evaluation of scientific creativity, in terms of concepts, application history and comparative analysis of independent indices.[Result/conclusion] Evaluating scientific creativity by means of bibliometrics provides a new entry point for the discipline of Library and Information Science participates in S&T innovation. Relevant research should be extended in terms of theoretical study, knowledge evaluation and reasonable evaluation.

Key words： bibliometrics; creativity; scientific creativity; novelty; usefulness

参考文献

[1] WEST M A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds:an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups[J]. Applied psychology, 2002,51(3):355-387.
[2] ALVA T, HENRICH G. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams[J]. Academy of management journal, 2006,49(4):723-740.
[3] AMABILE T M, CONTI R, COON H, et al. Assessing the work environment for creativity[J]. Academy of management journal, 1996,39(5):1154-1184.
[4] VILLALBA E. Is it really possible to measure creativity? A first proposal for debate[C]//VILLALBA E. Measuring Creativity-Proceedings for the conference "Can creativity be measured?".Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union, 2009:3-14.
[5] EUROPEAN UNION. European year of creativity and innovation 2009[EB/OL].[2016-07-09]. http://www.create2009.europa.eu.
[6] BAER J, MCKOOLS S. The gold standard for assessing creativity[J]. International journal of quality assurance in engineering and technology education, 2014,3(1):81-93.
[7] AMABILE T M. Social psychology of creativity:aconsensual assessment technique[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1982,43(5):997-1013.
[8] AMABILE T M, PILLEMER J. Perspectives on the social psychology of creativity[J]. Journal of creative behavior, 2012,46(1):3-15.
[9] GUILFORD J P. Creativity[J]. American psychologist, 1950,5(9):444-454.
[10] MOJCA J. Postgraduate students' perception of creativity in the research process[J]. Center for educational policy studies journal, 2011,1(1):169-190.
[11] RHODES M. An analysis of creativity[J]. Phi delta kappan, 1961,42(7):305-310.
[12] PLUCKER J A, BEGHETTO R A, DOW G T. Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research[J]. Educational psychologist, 2004,39(2):83-96.
[13] AMABILE T M. The social psychology of creativity:acomponential conceptualization[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1983,45(2):357-376.
[14] HEINZE T, SHAPIRA P, ROGERS J D, et al. Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research[J]. Research policy, 2009,38(4):610-623.
[15] STUMPF H. Scientific creativity:ashort overview[J]. Educational psychology review, 1995,7(3):225-241.
[16] PIFFER D. Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research[J]. Thinking skills and creativity, 2012,7(3):258-264.
[17] TORRANCE E P. Torrance test of creative thinking[M]. Lexington:Personal Press, 1974.
[18] KIM K H. Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the torrancetests of creative thinking (TTCT)[J]. Creativity research journal, 2006,18(1):3-14.
[19] BAER J. How divergent thinking tests mislead us:are thetorrancetests still relevant in the 21st century? The division 10 debate.[J]. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 2011,5(4):309-313.
[20] SAWYER R K. Explaining creativity:the science of human innovation[M]. New York:Oxford University Press, 2006:35.
[21] FURNHAM A, BACHTIAR V. Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity[J]. Personality and individual differences, 2008,45(7):613-617.
[22] LAU S, CHEUNG P C. Creativity assessment:comparability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach-Kogan creativity tests[J]. Thinking skills and creativity, 2010,5(3):101-107.
[23] CHIN M K, SIEW N M. The development and validation of a figural scientific creativity test for preschool pupils[J]. Creative education, 2015,6(12):1391-1402.
[24] VILLALBA E. Measuring creativity-proceedings for the conference "Can creativity be measured?", May 28-29, 2009[C]//VILLALBA E. Measuring Creativity-Proceedings for the conference "Can creativity be measured?".Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union, 2009.
[25] FLORIDA R. Cities and the creative class[J]. City &community, 2003,2(1):3-19.
[26] KERN P, RUNGE J. KEA briefing:towards a European creativity index[C]//VILLALBA E. Measuring Creativity-Proceedings for the conference "Can creativity be measured?".Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union, 2009:191-205.
[27] SHONE J B, HUI D. Design and construction of the Hong Kong creativity index[C]//VILLALBA E. Measuring Creativity-Proceedings for the conference "Can creativity be measured?".Luxembourg:Publications Office of the European Union, 2009:91-102.
[28] BOXENBAUM H. Scientific creativity:areview[J]. Drug metabolism reviews, 1991,23(5/6):473-492.
[29] AYAS M B, SAK U. Objective measure of scientific creativity:psychometric validity of the creative scientific ability test[J]. Thinking skills and creativity, 2014,13:195-205.
[30] SAK U, AYAS M B. Creative scientific ability test (C-SAT):anew measure of scientific creativity[J]. Psychological test and assessment modeling, 2013,55(3):316-329.
[31] HU W, ADEY P. A scientific creativity test for secondary school students[J]. International journal of science education, 2002,24(4):389-403.
[32] LEE Y, WALSH J P, WANG J. Creativity in scientific teams:unpacking novelty and impact[J]. Research policy, 2015,44(3):684-697.
[33] YAMIN T S. Scientific creativity and knowledge production:theses, critique, and implications[J]. Gifted and talented International, 2010,25(1):7-12.
[34] MUKHOPADHYAY R, SEN M K. Scientific creativity-anew emerging field of research:some considerations[J]. International journal of education and psychological research, 2013,2(1):1-9.
[35] HEINZE T, SHAPIRA P, SENKER J, et al. Identifying creative research accomplishments:methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics[J]. Scientometrics, 2007,70(1):125-152.
[36] HAN K. Domain-specificity of creativity in young children:how quantitative and qualitative data support it[J]. The journal of creative behavior, 2003,37(2):117-142.
[37] PLUCKER J A, RUNCO M A. The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated:current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment[J]. Roeperreview, 1998,21(1):36-39.
[38] AKTAMIS H, PEKMEZ E Ş, CAN B T, et al. Developing scientific creativity test[EB/OL].[2016-07-10]. http://www.clab.edc.uoc.gr/2nd/pdf/58.
[39] DINESCU M C, FABIAN A M. Creative potential of research and development-acomposite index of potential scientific creativity[J]. Annals of faculty of economics, 2011,1(2):77-82.
[40] SEGAL S M, BUSSE T V, MANSFIELD R S. The relationship of scientific creativity in the biological sciences to predoctoralaccomplishments and experiences[J]. American educational research journal, 1980,17(4):491-502.
[41] SIMONTON D K. Origins of genius:Darwinianperspectives on creativity[M]. New York:Oxford University Press, 1999:148-155.
[42] SIMONTON D K. Creativity in science:chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 2004:17.
[43] BUSSE T V, MANSFIELD R S. Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists[J]. The journal of psychology:interdisciplinary and applied, 1984,116(1):117-131.
[44] HEINZE T, BAUER G. Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T:productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective[J]. Scientometrics, 2007,70(3):811-830.
[45] FRIGOTTO M L, RICCABONI M. Afew special cases:scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases[J]. Scientometrics, 2011,89(1):397-420.
[46] SIMONTON D K. Scientific genius:apsychology of science[M]. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1988:1-23.
[47] DOBOLI S, ZHAO F, DOBOLI A. New measures for evaluating creativity in scientific publications[EB/OL].[2016-07-30]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7582.
[48] SOLER J M. A rational indicator of scientific creativity[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2007,1(2):123-130.
[49] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013,342(6157):468-472.
[50] SHAH J J, SMITH S M, NOE V H. Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness[J]. Design studies, 2003,24(2):111-134.
[51] RINIA E J, VAN LEEUWEN T N, VAN VUREN H G, et al. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria:evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands[J]. Research policy, 1998,27(1):95-107.
[52] COLE J, COLE S. Measuring the quality of sociological research:problems in the use of the Science Citation Index[J]. American sociologist, 1971,6:23-29.
[53] HOLLINGSWORTH J R. Research organizations and major discoveries in twentieth-century science:acase study of excellence in biomedical research. WZB Discussion Paper, No. P 02-003[R]. Berlin:WZB Berlin Social Science Center, 2002.
[54] 孙雍君. 关于科技团体创造力评估模型研究[J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2001,17(6):45-50.
[55] 傅世侠, 罗玲玲, 孙雍君, 等. 科技团体创造力评估模型研究[J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2005,21(2):79-82, 111.
[56] 傅世侠, 罗玲玲. 构建科技团体创造力评估模型[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2005.
[57] SIMONTON D K. Assessing scientific creativity:conceptual analyses of assessment complexities[R].Washington, DC:National Academy of Sciences, 2012.
[58] 马费成. 情报学的进展与深化[J]. 情报学报, 1996,15(5):338-344.
[59] AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)[EB/OL].[2016-07-14]. http://www.ascb.org/dora/.
[60] HICKS D, WOUTERS P. Leiden manifesto for research Metrics[EB/OL].[2016-07-14]. http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉