Letters to the Editor
Comments on Leydesdorff ’s Article
Sir:
Leydesdorff (Leydesdorff, 1997) claims and proves that the
meaning of words describing scientific articles change over
time, and from one article to another, and one subject area to
another. He says that the same word can deal with method in
one case, and with theory in another. He says that a word
standing for a certain reality in one article can stand for an
alternate reality in another article, that word-meaning links with
other words in one article can mean other links in another article,
and consequently, links among words change over time and
texts. Thus, if a word has no precise meaning, it cannot work
like a mathematical variable or index and cannot be used in
any mathematical calculation. It is the unending lament of Lewis
Carroll and other mathematicians, claiming a single meaning
for each word in order to live more safely! But every linguist
or psychologist knows that changing meaning is required for a
correct functioning of true human communication. Of course,
mathematicians wish that words were like mathematical vari-
ables, but, maybe apart from yes and no, it is fortunately never
the case.
Co-word analysis is exactly based on the opposite idea.
Words are not used as linguistic items to mean something, but
as indicators of links between texts, whatever they mean. Co-
word analysis is related to a more general model of human
interaction, based on semiotics, leading to translation theory as
explained by Callon, Law, and Rip (1986), or based on more
recent social signification theory (Bruner, 1990; Courtial &
Gourdon, 1997). According to this approach, science is not
discovery of reality but the making of maximum-size control
chains of translation, linking human and nature in order to get
expected results. For instance, from the point of view of sciento-
metrics or science in the making, endorphin role discovery, in
the context of autism research, is not a way of discovering a
natural process for autism (although scientists will take it for
that in the frame of achieved science). It is a new way to control
or manage autism. Consequently, words are chain indexes,
allowing one to compute translation networks. Endorphin can
thus be used in a theoretical context rather than in a methodolog-
ical context. What is important for co-word analysis is not the
exact meaning or definition of endorphin, but the fact that en-
dorphin be linked to autism in one case and drug treatment in
another case. Thus, co-word analysis computes network patterns
and is consequently able to show that, at a certain time period,
endorphin appears at a center or strategic place within the co-
word network. Despite the (incorrect) theoretical criticism sug-
gested by Leydesdorff, it is the reason why co-word analysis is
a powerful tool for science forecast and management. Among
the successful studies of the last years, an entire chapter is
q 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE. 49(1):98–99, 1998
110A / 8n3c$$110A 11-06-97 22:59:56 jasas
devoted to it in a recent book (Courtial, Sigogneau, & Callon,
1997).
J. P. Courtial
Laboratoire de Psychologie
Education, Cognition, Developpement
Université de Nantes
BP 81227
44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France
References
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science
and technology. London: MacMillan.
Courtial, J. P., & Gourdon, L. (1997). A network model for cultural
psychology validated within a scientific community. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Courtial, J. P., Sigogneau, A., & Callon, M. (1997). Identifying strategic
sciences and technologies through scientometrics. In W. B. Ahston &
R. A. Klavans (Eds.), Keeping abreast of science and technology,
technical intelligence for business (pp. 337–372). Columbus, OH:
Battelle Press.
Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Why words and co-words cannot map the
development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 48, 418–427.
Reply about Using Co-Words
Sir:
The authors of this letter argue that it is ‘‘important for
endorphine to be linked to autism in one case and drug-treat-
ment in another case.’’ Indeed, these different co-word links
place endorphine in different contexts, and therefore a differ-
ence in meaning between co-occurrences is implied. Yet, if
words are used ‘‘as indicators of links between texts, whatever
they mean,’’ these authors should wish to analyze distributions
of words and their patterns of co-occurrences and co-absences
instead of individual events.
Theoretically, I agree that novelty may emerge in texts as
new combinations of words. The methodological question is
whether one can trace significant novelty by using the co-word
analysis tool, and then provide the results with meaning from
the discursive contexts of these co-occurrences.
Of course, an external interpretation (e.g., on the basis of a
sociology) is always possible because words have contextual
meanings. Indeed, co-word maps have been used to legitimate
CCC 0002-8231/98/010098-02
W: JASIS
science policy, forecasting, and management. However, the
noted ‘‘chain indexes’’ are often a result of single-linkage clus-
tering (Leydesdorff, 1987). Elsewhere, I analyzed the strategic
indexes that are derived from these co-word maps (Leydesdorff,
1992). In general, relational indexes cannot warrant inferences
about strategic positions, such as answers to the question which
co-words are ‘‘at a center or strategic place within the co-word
network?’’
Can the interpretation methodologically be warranted by us-
ing positional analysis for the indication of meaning in co-
occurrence patterns of words? For this purpose, one is in need
of methodologies that allow us (1) to relate the results of rela-
tional and positional analysis, and (2) to relate the static (multi-
variate) and dynamic (time-series) analysis. In the recent arti-
cle, I gave substantive reasons why differences between multi-
variate representations at different moments in time are not
sufficiently reliable for mapping dynamic developments.
Information calculus provides a useful tool for combining
the static and dynamic analysis (Leydesdorff, 1991; 1995).
Among other things, information theory enables us to proceed
from spatial mappings and geometrical metaphors to algorith-
mic approaches. Additionally, it allows us to abstract from the
meaning of individual words and co-occurrences of words by
using distributions in a more abstract way (Leydesdorff, 1996).
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—January 1998
110A / 8n3c$$110A 11-06-97 22:59:56 jasas
Loet Leydesdorff
Department of Science and Technology Dynamics
Nieuwe Achtergracht 166
1018 WV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
E-mail: l.leydesdorff@mail.uva.nl
References
Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science.
Scientometrics, 11, 291–320.
Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The static and dynamic analysis of network
data using information theory. Social Networks, 13, 301–345.
Leydesdorff, L. (1992). A validation study of ‘‘LEXIMAPPE.’’ Sci-
entometrics, 25, 295–312.
Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The develop-
ment, measurement and self-organization of scientific communica-
tions. Leiden: DSWO Press, Leiden University.
Leydesdorff, L. (1996). Scientometrics and science studies: From words
and co-words to information and entropy. Journal of the International
Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics JISSI, 2, 33–39.
99
W: JASIS