↓ Skip to main content

The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004
Published in
Implementation Science, November 2008
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-3-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole A Estabrooks, Linda Derksen, Connie Winther, John N Lavis, Shannon D Scott, Lars Wallin, Joanne Profetto-McGrath

Abstract

It has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods. Using bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake. We provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion. We conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (i.e., that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 7 3%
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 2 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 225 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 25%
Researcher 41 16%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 14 5%
Other 55 22%
Unknown 28 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 67 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 16%
Computer Science 22 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 16 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Other 55 22%
Unknown 41 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,170,310
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,207
of 1,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,343
of 88,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.