基于知识图谱的评价理论树拓展研究

科研管理 ›› 2014, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (5): 128-137.

基于知识图谱的评价理论树拓展研究

李强¹, 王小梅², 韩涛²

1. 中国科学院科技政策与管理科学研究所, 北京 100190;
2. 中国科学院文献情报中心, 北京 100190

收稿日期:2013-06-01 修回日期:2013-12-31 出版日期:2014-05-25 发布日期:2014-05-21
作者简介:李强（1970-）男，河北人，助理研究员，研究方向为科技评价与宏观科技管理。
王小梅（1969-）女，辽宁人，副研究员，研究方向为情报分析方法与技术。
韩涛（1980-）男，湖北人，副研究员，研究方向为文献计量与复杂性科学。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（71173211）；中国科学院科技政策与管理科学研究所C类项目（Y201221Z04）。

Theoretical extension of evaluation theory tree based on mapping knowledge domain

Li Qiang¹, Wang Xiaomei², Han Tao²

1. Institute of Policy and Management, CAS, Beijing 100190, China;
2. National Science Library, CAS, Beijing 100190, China

Received:2013-06-01 Revised:2013-12-31 Online:2014-05-25 Published:2014-05-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过杰出学者遴选和引文分析，本研究构建了评价研究领域的知识图谱，并对阿尔金的评价理论树状结构进行拓展，拓展后的评价理论树在更好地表征研究领域、研究方向与研究者之间关系的同时，还通过干枝关系反映出评价理论的发展和热点主题的历史演进，为把握评价理论发展趋势提供了借鉴。与传统的学者个人归纳、访谈调查等主观方法相比，本研究方法的科学性、数据的有效性是其最大的优势，这也为学科界限比较模糊的社会学热点方向判断和前沿理论分类提供了参考范式。

关键词: 杰出学者, 评价理论, 聚类分析, 知识图谱

Abstract: This study constructed the mapping knowledge domain of evaluation research area and expanded Alkin's evaluation theory tree based onleading academics and citation analysis of their journal publications. The expanded evaluation theory tree characterized better relationship between research front, research area and the researchers,and it also demonstrated the evolution of hot themes in evaluation research. Compared with the subjective methods of interviewing, personal summarizing and so on, this study provided objective methods and data in sociological research and can be a paradigm for reference.

Key words: leading academics, evaluation theory, cluster analysis, mapping knowledge domain

中图分类号:

630.35

李强, 王小梅, 韩涛. 基于知识图谱的评价理论树拓展研究[J]. 科研管理, 2014, 35(5): 128-137.

Li Qiang, Wang Xiaomei, Han Tao. Theoretical extension of evaluation theory tree based on mapping knowledge domain[J]. Science Research Management, 2014, 35(5): 128-137.

参考文献

[1] Ernest R.House.Assumptions underlying evaluation models[J].EducationalResearcher,1978,7(8):4-12. [2] Janice E.Williams.A Numerically Developed Taxonomy of Evaluation Theory and Practice[J].Evaluation Review,1989,13(1):18-31. [3] Marvin C.Alkin.Evaluation roots:tracing theoristsviews and influences[M].Sage Publications,Incorporated,2004:13-14. [4] Stewart I.Donaldson.& Tarek A.Azzam.Tending the garden of evaluation theory:Flourishing trees and Ph.D.s.In Vo,A.& Christie,C.A.,Evaluation Use & Decision Making[M].Greenwich,CT:Information Age (In Press). [5] Anne E.Heberger,Christina A.Christie,and Marvin C.Alkin.A Bibliometric Analysis of theAcademic Influences of and onEvaluation Theorists' PublishedWorks[J].2010,31(1):24-44. [6] LeoEgghe& Ronald Rousseau.Introduction to Informetrics:quantitative methods in library,documentation and information science[M].1990 Elsevier Science Publishers,1990. [7] 潘教峰等.科学结构地图2012[M]. 北京:科学出版社, 2013:4-6. [8] Tim T Robinson,J Bradley Cousins.Internal participatory evaluation as an organizational learning system:A longitudinal case study[J].Studies in Educational Evaluation,2004,30(1):1-22. [9] Eleanor Chelimsky.Program Evaluation and Appropriate Governmental Change[J].Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science,1983,466(1):103-118. [10] Eleanor Chelimsky.The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice[J].American Journal of Evaluation,1998,19(1):35-55. [11] Leonard Bickman.Implications of a children's mental health managed care demonstration evaluation[J].Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research,1996,23(1):107-117. [12] E.Warren Lambert,Ann Doucette,Leonard Bickman.Measuring mental health outcomes with pre-post designs[J].Journal of Behavioral Health ServicesResearch,2001,28(3):273-286. [13] Huey-Tsyh Chen,Peter H.Rossi.Evaluating With Sense:The Theory-Driven Approach[J].Evaluation Review,1983,7(3):283-302. [14] Huey-Tsyh Chen,Peter H.Rossi.Issues in the theory-driven perspective[J].Evaluation and Program Planning,1989,12(4):299-306. [15] Donald T.Campbell.Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings[J].Psychological Bulletin,1957,54:297-312. [16] Donald T.Campbell.Methods for the experimenting society[J].Evaluation Practice,1991,12(3):223-260. [17] Huey-Tsyh Chen.The conceptual framework of the theory-driven perspective[J].Evaluation and Program Planning,1989,12(4):391-396. [18] Jennifer G.Greene.Stakeholder Participation and Utilization in Program Evaluation[J].Evaluation Review,1988,12(2):91-116. [19] Jori N.Hall,Jeehae Ahn,Jennifer C.Greene.Values Engagement in Evaluation;Ideas,Illustrations,and Implications[J].American Journal of Evaluation,2012,33(2):195-207. [20] Michael Scriven.New frontiers of evaluation[J].Evaluation Practice,1986,7(1):7-44. [21] Michael Scriven.Pros and Cons about Goal-Free Evaluation[J].American Journal of Evaluation,1991,12(1):55-62. [22] Ernest R.House,Sandra Mathison.Methodology and Values in Evaluation[J].Educational Theory,1984,34(2):151-152. [23] Ernest R.House.The future perfect of evaluation[J].Evaluation Practice,1994,15(3):239-247. [24] Fred Carden,Marvin C.Alkin.Evaluation Roots:An International Perspective[J].Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation,2012,8(17):102-118.