ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE

Field, capital, and habitus: The impact of
Pierre Bourdieu on bibliometrics

Marco Schirone1,2

1Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden
2Department of Communication and Learning in Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Mots clés: bibliométrie, Bourdieu, informetrics, quantitative science studies, scientometrics,
sociology of science

ABSTRAIT

This study is a critical review aimed at assessing the reception received in bibliometric research
by the theories and concepts developed by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The data set consists
de 182 documents, including original articles, editorial material, review articles, conference
papers, monographs, and doctoral dissertations. A quantitative analysis was used to establish
the authors and countries that most frequently make use of Bourdieu’s theories, as well as the
most popular concepts, which were identified as “field,” followed by “symbolic capital” and
“social capital.” Then, the article discusses the impact of Bourdieusian key concepts such as
“field.” Among the findings, the following are noteworthy: the integration of his field theory into
pre-existing bibliometric conceptualizations of research fields, especially when power relations
are problematized; the use of “symbolic capital” in connection with citation analysis and
altmetrics; and greater interest in Bourdieu’s theories compared to his methods, although some
sources have used Bourdieu’s preferred statistical method, correspondence analysis. De plus,
Bourdieu’s theoretical impact is noticeable in research on journals, university rankings, early
career researchers, and gender. The paper’s conclusions point to future research paths based
on concepts less used in the bibliometric literature, such as “delegation.”

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Pierre Bourdieu is one of the most influential sociologists in history, and his theories have
been, and are, used extensively across a broad spectrum of fields (da Silva, 2021; Korom,
2020). The sociology of science is one of the fields in which Bourdieu, primarily through
Homo academicus (1988), has had a significant influence, and his works have also been cited
in the field of bibliometrics.

The influence of Robert K. Merton, another impactful sociologist of science, has attracted
the attention of scholars in the field of quantitative science studies (par exemple., Crothers, Bornmann,
& Haunschild, 2020; Desrochers, Paul-Hus et al., 2018), et, more specifically, his influence
on research in bibliometrics (and related metrics field) has been amply discussed, most
notably by Eugene Garfield (2004, 2009) as well as others. De la même manière, we aim to provide a
systematic analysis of how Bourdieu’s theories and concepts have been applied within
bibliometric research and to propose and discuss the further potential of Bourdieu’s theories
in the field.

un accès ouvert

journal

Citation: Schirone, M.. (2023). Field,
capital, and habitus: The impact of
Pierre Bourdieu on bibliometrics.
Études scientifiques quantitatives, 4(1),
186–208. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a
_00232

EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00232

Peer Review:
https://www.webofscience.com/api
/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162
/qss_a_00232

Informations complémentaires:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00232

Reçu: 21 Juin 2022
Accepté: 3 Décembre 2022

Auteur correspondant:
Marco Schirone
marco.schirone@hb.se

Éditeur de manipulation:
Vincent Larivière

droits d'auteur: © 2023 Marco Schirone.
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International (CC PAR 4.0)
Licence.

La presse du MIT

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

For this purpose, the present literature review includes a synopsis of the sociologist’s key
ideas, followed by a section on the paper’s data sources and methods. The text then moves to a
critical review of the sources, supported by their content analysis and network visualization,
and structured according to the conceptual triad constituted by “field,” “capital," et
“habitus.” The last section discusses the sociologist’s overall impact on bibliometrics and
future lines of inquiry.

1.2. An Overview of Bourdieu’s Life, Works, and Theories

Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002) was born in Denguin, a small town in southwest France. Son
career has been effectively summarized as the trajectory of an anthropologist who became
a sociologist without ever forgetting his roots in philosophy, which was his formal academic
background (Jenkins, 2014). At the beginning of his career as a scholar, he taught at the Uni-
versity of Algiers and undertook anthropological field research in colonial Algeria (Yacine,
Wacquant, & Ingram, 2004). Later in life, he was appointed to the chair of sociology at
the Collège de France, this country’s most senior academic position in that field (see also
Wacquant, 2002).

A general overview of Bourdieu’s numerous works is accessible elsewhere (Golsorkhi &
Huault, 2006), and in particular through the lens of his critics (Jenkins, 2014; Sismondo, 2011),
collaborators (Wacquant, 2002), and even Bourdieu’s own (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992).
Several works are nevertheless particularly relevant to the scope of this review and worthy
of mention.

In the first period of his career, Bourdieu lived in Algeria and wrote anthropological work
concerning its society in the wake of the war of independence. Plus tard, in the book Distinction
(2010), first published in 1979, he analyzed the social conditions that influence the appreci-
ation of artistic works and other cultural objects, a theme resurfacing in later works (Bourdieu,
1980, 1993). In Homo academicus, Bourdieu (1988) studied the French university system, et
in particular the power struggles between scholars with more status and resources or the
“dominant” fraction, and the “dominated” ones that have more limited availability of the
necessary means to succeed in the field. The theme of power and status in academia reappears
in his book on philosopher (and university manager) Martin Heidegger (Bourdieu, 1991c) et
in State nobility (Bourdieu, 1996b).

Bourdieu’s oeuvre has addressed many topics, as this brief recollection of some of his major
works can testify. Cependant, his interest in the sociology of science has been long-lasting
(1975b, 1988, 1991b, 2004). Bourdieu’s (2000) analysis of the scholarly field, as well as any
other social field, hinges on the triad formed by the concepts “field,” “capital,” and “habitus.”

Bourdieu’s thought is broader than this triad, as one of his former collaborators pointed out
(Wacquant, 2014). Cependant, for an assessment of Bourdieu’s impact in a scientific field, le
triad deserves particular attention because of the popularity of Bourdieu’s sociology gained via
the utilization of its three concepts. According to Wacquant, nevertheless, the success of the
triad has sometimes been accompanied by the “fetishization” of these concepts and their
overuse (Wacquant, 2018).

Against Alfred Schütz’s social phenomenology, deemed by Bourdieu (1975un, p. 45, note
41) as too subjectivist and politically “neutral,” and the formalism of Structuralists, he treats
scientific and artistic fields as being two types of the intellectual champ (1996un). De plus,
as with the instances of “fine” and “popular” art—which are valued differently in society—
scientific fields are conceived as “distinct” (Bourdieu, 2010), with some science being more

Études scientifiques quantitatives

187

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

prestigious than others. The cases of the higher status of economics and the “pariah science,»
sociology (Bourdieu, 2005), are both examples of the “social hierarchy of the faculties”
(Bourdieu, 1988, p. 37). In any case, the scientific field is a type of social field and, as such,
is a “social space” (Bourdieu, 1985b) inhabited by several components: the social agents
(individuals and groups), their positions, relations, and conflicts; the institutions that grant
access to the field and legitimize the exercise of power; and the assets available to the agents
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). The genesis and development of fields correspond to the agents’
struggles to secure a position or acquire a more advantageous one. Eyal (2013) a fait valoir que
Bourdieu’s field theory is more beneficial for studying relations within fields than between fields.
Bourdieu has indeed been more concerned with the history and organization of individual fields,
such as sociology (Bourdieu, 2002) and philosophy (Bourdieu, 1991c), than the interactions
between scholarly domains or their interdisciplinarity. Such limitation of his field theory,
pointed out also by Sismondo (2011), could be understood if one considers Bourdieu’s strong
beliefs in an “established hierarchy of the disciplines” and his emphasis on the relative
“autonomy” of scientific fields from each other and from societal structures such as the market
(Bourdieu, 1975b, p. 34). According to Burawoy (2018), an overestimation of the autonomy of
social fields led Bourdieu to consider the “capitalist university”—the university influenced by
neoliberalism and New Public Management—more independent from external market pressures
than it was (and in Burawoy’s view, still is).

Nevertheless, a significant share of Bourdieu’s legacy derives from an innovative analytical
toolbox based on the concept of “capital.” Bourdieu (1986un) identifies three primary forms of
capital: economic capital, or the assets that can be readily marketed and monetized; sociale
capital, or the intangible assets constituted by relations and networks; and cultural capital,
or an agent’s knowledge assets. De plus, following Max Weber’s sociology (Wacquant,
2018), Bourdieu (1991un) also theorized the “symbolic capital,” which consists of other intan-
gible assets (c'est à dire., prestige, authority, and status). In addition to these primary forms of capital—
found across many social fields—Bourdieu also conceptualizes other types that are “legal
tender” only within specific social fields, as in the case of academic capital and scientific
capital. Although intertwined, these two types of capital have different meanings and are used
slightly differently by Bourdieu. The former concept emphasizes academic institutions’
bureaucratic roles (par exemple., universities as degree-granting institutions). The latter means prestige
or symbolic capital that individual researchers and collective agents, such as universities,
acquire in a field.

Whereas a distinction and tension characterize Bourdieu’s theory—between primary cap-
ital and field-related ones such as the scientific capital—the third pillar of the triad, habitus,
always exists as habitus-of-a-field. Drawing upon David Hume’s dispositional account of
human agency, Bourdieu (1977) defined the habitus as those conscious and unconscious
dispositions that drive an agent’s behavior, are shaped by the field’s practices, and consolidate
such practices (Bourdieu, 1991c). Humans develop the habitus typical for the field through
socialization processes, lequel, à son tour, reinforces the reproduction of the social order
(Bourdieu, 1991un, p. 251).

Statistical methods are necessary to analyze a field as a “whole” (Bourdieu, 2010). From the
middle 1970s onwards, Bourdieu used the statistical method of correspondence analysis
developed by the mathematician Jean-Paul Benzécri (2006), with whom Bourdieu entertained
a long-lasting personal and intellectual relationship (see also Le Roux & Rouanet, 2010). At the
same time, Bourdieu acknowledged the potential limitations of quantitative analyses, partic-
ularly their possible reinforcement of the “biographical illusion” (Bourdieu, 1986b). According
to this fallacy, information about individuals is considered constant in time and space rather

Études scientifiques quantitatives

188

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

than being ever-developing. Because the agents are always caught in practices that develop
historically, the statistical analyses have to be grounded in history. Inversely, historical analyses
of social fields require a bird’s-eye view of the field provided by statistical approaches.

Although the emphasis on history in Bourdieu’s sociology is well known (Calhoun, 2013),
far less mentioned is its “probabilistic” nature, an essential aspect that Strand and Lizardo
(2021) have recently pointed out. The practices of the human agents that are more likely to
occur (par exemple., because of power structures) become, with time, consolidated characteristics of a
field. In this perspective, power structures are conservative. In contrast, the struggles for capital
and better positions in hierarchies introduce change and variability into social practices, tel
as the production of scientific knowledge. In intellectual fields, be they scientific or artistic
(Bourdieu, 1975un), social and cognitive relations are intertwined. Amid such relations, pouvoir
structures in society legitimize certain fields rather than others, generating and reinforcing
hierarchies between “dominant” and “dominated” fields, as with the case of the “fine” and
“popular” forms of art, or between established scientific fields and other emerging or
declining ones.”

2. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
The review type of this study, the critical review, seeks in the sources it assesses their “con-
ceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory” according to the typology cre-
ated by Grant and Booth (2009, p. 94) which Price (2022) has lately considered as having
“stood the test of time.” According to two more recent surveys of review types, the critical
one belongs to the “traditional” review family (Sutton, Clowes et al., 2019), and it seeks “to
critically analyze and examine the literature and the main ideas and relationships of an issue”
(Snyder, 2019, p. 336).

The relevant documents for the present review article were identified through a multistep
approach based on the workflow illustrated in Figure 1. The Web of Science Core Collection
was used to identify documents published in the core journals. Their keywords were subse-
quently used to search for the additional literature constituting the review’s final data set,
which is available in Appendix A of the Supplementary material.

2.1. Data Sources

In Step 1 of the data collection, an initial data set of documents was identified using the
function Cited Reference Search in all the citation indexes of Web of Science Core Collection
(Clarivate Analytics). A search for all documents that cite any works authored by Bourdieu (sur
Janvier 31, 2022) and published between 1960 (when his scholarly contributions began to be
printed) et 2021 (the last complete year at the time of writing) resulted in 15,167 hits. In Step
2, the data set of core literature for the field (n = 76) was identified by looking for documents
(of any type) in core journals in bibliometrics (and related metrics), according to the study by
Milojević and Leydesdorff (2013), whose findings Maltseva and Batagelj (2020) have more
recently confirmed. In Step 3, six documents not pertinent to the bibliometrics field (all pub-
lished in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology) étaient
excluded. The full texts of the resulting 70 documents were downloaded in Step 4. At this
stage, moreover, the R package for science mapping bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017)
was used to analyze the 70 documents and explore the characteristics of this initial literature
ensemble, such as the most productive and cited authors, the core documents, and the most recurring
author-assigned keywords that is, the keywords present in the original documents and not
algorithmically generated in the database’s environment (on how to utilize bibliometrix in

Études scientifiques quantitatives

189

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

Chiffre 1. The workflow of the study. Note: The core journals of bibliometrics in Step 2 were identified based on the study by Milojević and
Leydesdorff (2013). The identification of the author-assigned keywords (for building the search query in Google Scholar) and of the core
authors (for searching additional documents for the content analysis in Step 5) was a bibliometric analysis of the documents (n = 70) in Step
4 performed with the R package bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017).

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

a review study, see also Secinaro, Calandra et al., 2021). In Step 5, these author-assigned key-
words were included in a search query used for collecting additional sources available from
the search engine Google Scholar (Alphabet). Broad terms such as research or out-of-scope
ones such as physics were excluded, whereas additional ones derived from the study by
Bar-Ilan (2008) such as informetric and webometric, were included. The characteristics of
the search engine make it redundant to key in the Boolean operator AND in the search
box and to specify both the singular and plural form of the terms. The following Google
Scholar query also included the term “Bourdieu” (because a web page that has a reference
to a work by Bourdieu must include the word “Bourdieu” in its text) and was structured with
the search operator allintext:

allintext:Bourdieu (scientometric OR bibliometric OR webometric OR informetric OR
altmetric OR “citation analysis” OR citation OR “network analysis” OR authorship OR

Études scientifiques quantitatives

190

Field, capital, and habitus

citation OR “citation network” OR co-authorship OR interdisciplinarity OR “international
academic awards” OR “research agenda” OR “research collaboration” OR “research perfor-
mance” OR “scientific collaboration”)

The data set of full-text documents in English retrieved comprised journal articles (y compris
review articles), conference papers (standalone or printed in proceedings), monographs, text-
livres, book chapters, and doctoral dissertations published between 1960 et 2021. Those
documents had to fit the theoretical or methodological scope of bibliometrics (and related
metrics), and Bourdieu’s concepts had to be explicitly mentioned. The relevance to the field
of bibliometrics (and related fields) was evaluated based on the document’s title, abstract,
and keywords and by accessing the full-text version whenever these metadata fields did not
suffice and the full text was available. In Step 5 still, more full texts were retrieved using the
software Publish or Perish version 8.2 (https:// harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish)
through citation searches for Bourdieu’s works in Google Scholar. Besides all the documents
retrieved with the abovementioned steps in Google Scholar (n = 102), doctoral dissertations
(n = 7) were retrieved from the database ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&je (ProQuest),
and print-only documents were accessed through library services (n = 3).

The review’s final data set obtained through these steps consisted of 182 documents. Their
metadata information was imported into the reference management software EndNote (https://
endnote.com) for manually cleaning the data and obtaining the RIS format file used for the
network visualizations based on their publication data (see Section 2.2). Their full texts were
imported into the text analysis software NVivo for the content analysis (see Section 2.3). Dernièrement,
Step 6 corresponds to the detailed reading of these sources and their critical review, lequel
builds on the content analysis in Step 5. Inversement, the reading of the resulting documents
in the critical review stage of the study strengthened the content analysis.

2.2. Network Visualizations

Two network maps based on data from the 182 documents were generated in the visualization
software VOSviewer version 1.6.18 (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). The first map was based on
the coauthorship relations extracted from an RIS format file created with EndNote. The frac-
tionalization approach was used to normalize the links’ strength. Nodes in the network were
weighted according to the number of documents (Van Eck & Waltman, 2022). En outre, le
RIS file, which included all the author-assigned keywords manually curated, was imported into
the VOSviewer environment (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). A text-mining network was gener-
ated with the software’s default settings and an additional VOSviewer thesaurus file (Van Eck &
Waltman, 2011).

2.3. The Content Analysis

According to Krippendorff’s (2019) typology of content analyses, the approach pursued in the
review is problem driven rather than text driven or method driven—with the research problem
being the impact of Bourdieu’s concepts. Ainsi, the full-text documents were imported into the
text-analysis software NVivo (https://www.qsrinternational.com), read, and coded (Jackson &
Bazeley, 2019). Print-only documents had to be added manually. The content analysis com-
bined quantitative elements (par exemple., the frequency of the occurrences of the concepts in the
corpus) with qualitative ones (par exemple., the significance of these concepts in the context of biblio-
metrics). The paragraphs of the individual documents were treated as the data’s “emergent
units” (Krippendorff, 2019, p. 286). The coding scheme through which these “conceptual

Études scientifiques quantitatives

191

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

units” (Lacity & Janson, 1994, p. 143) were identified is provided in Appendix B of the
Supplementary material. Bourdieu’s conceptual framework was used to determine the codes.
Additional notions not found in Bourdieu’s work but still useful for the data analysis were
included in the coding scheme. One example of this latter case is “ego’s network size,” which
Abbasi, Wigand, and Hossain (2014) utilize to study the social capital of scholars. Certain
terms can be associated with other theoretical perspectives than the Bourdeusian one, pour
instance, “field” or “discipline” (Hammarfelt, 2020; Sugimoto & Weingart, 2015). Ainsi, a men-
tion of at least one of Bourdieu’s works in the paragraph was required to associate the text with
that specific code. A unit of analysis—the paragraph—was treated as “multi-valued data," c'est,
multiple codes could be associated with the same coded text (Krippendorff, 2019, p. 287).

I performed coding, although the coding process and data analyses were discussed with
two senior researchers in bibliometrics who are also knowledgeable of Bourdieu’s works.
The coding and interpretation of the units were conducted through an iterated reading of
the data, according to which a concept was added to the coding scheme based on its first
occurrence in the data set. Following an abductive standpoint to content analysis, this process
was repeated until sufficient “empirical grounding” (Krippendorff, 2019, p. 39) was reached.
With me as the only coder, the repeated reading of the sources and my continued debriefing
with the two experts mitigate the lack of statistical tests for assessing intercoder reliability. Dans
addition, the mixed-methods nature of the content analysis granted an element of triangulation
in virtue of which qualitative and quantitative approaches strengthened reciprocally their
respective findings.

3. RÉSULTATS
This results section begins with Bourdieu’s influence seen through the quantitative findings of
the content analysis and the network visualizations. Thereafter, this initial picture of his legacy
will be followed by a more fine-grained assessment of sources based on the qualitative analyses.

3.1. A Quantitative Overview of the Corpus

Five of the most productive authors in the data set are associated with a Canadian university
( Vincent Larivière, Adèle Paul-Hus, Yves Gingras, Philippe Mongeon, and Nadine Desrochers).
The countries associated with the most documents (according to the authors’ affiliations) sont
the United States (n = 54) and Canada (n = 40), followed by the Netherlands (n = 23),
Allemagne (n = 13), Espagne (n = 12), and Brazil (n = 9).

Chiffre 2 presents different colors corresponding to the chronology of the documents on
which the network is based. The map thus highlights the pioneering role of the U.S.-affiliated
Blaise Cronin (author of 14 documents) and the Canadian Yves Gingras (author of nine doc-
uments). The color of these two authors’ nodes is found at the left end of the color spectrum,
indicating early publications. Although the Soviet scientometrician Haitun (1982) is the first to
cite Bourdieu, the book on the field of Canadian physics by Gingras (1991) has been para-
mount in introducing Bourdieu in bibliometrics research. Vincent Larivière, a former PhD
student of Gingras, is the most productive author (avec 20 documents). The map also shows
Cronin’s centrality in the network, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto (with eight documents), a former
PhD student of his, is also among the most prolific authors. The other authors who have pub-
lished the most documents are Adèle Paul-Hus and Rodrigo Costas (nine documents), Loet
Leydesdorff, Nadine Desrochers, and Philippe Mongeon (seven documents), and Björn
Hammarfelt and Jacqueline Leta (five documents). En particulier, Chiffre 2 shows the pivotal role
in the network of Leydesdorff, Desrochers, and Costas.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

192

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Chiffre 2. The coauthorship network of the authors of documents in the data set.

Figures 3(un)–(c) show the most frequent concepts according to their mention in the data
ensemble (Chiffre 3(un)), the number of documents (Chiffre 3(b)), and the types of capital (Chiffre 3(c)).
In Figure 3(un), the concept of “field” ranks first, followed by “capital” and “habitus,” whereas
Chiffre 3(b) shows that the most mentioned types of capital are the symbolic and the social.
Chiffre 3(b) confirms the assertion made by Wacquant (2018), according to whom Bourdieu’s
concepts are often parsed and used individually. Occurrences of more than one type of capital
in the same text are rare, with a few exceptions where both social and symbolic capital are
mentioned (Abbasi et al., 2014; Desrochers et al., 2018), and in sources that report both
“scientific capital” and “symbolic capital” to specify that the former is a subtype of the latter,
c'est, symbolic capital in the field of science (Champely, Fargier, & Camy, 2017; Desrochers,
Paul-Hus, & Pecoskie, 2017; Jiang & Liu, 2018).

Chiffre 4 shows the connections between the author-assigned keywords associated with
the documents. The overlay visualization functionality of the software adds a chronological
dimension: terms associated with more recent documents appear in a color closer to the
right end of the color spectrum. Among them, the nodes “sociology of sociology,” “social
capital,” “sociology of science,” and “field theory” would suggest that sociological thinking,
broadly speaking, has impacted the conceptual organization of the review’s corpus. Other
termes, such as “gender gap,” “evaluation,” and “ranking,” are to be re-encountered later in
the review.

3.2. The Impact of Bourdieu’s Triad on the Corpus

Emirbayer and Johnson (2008) and Malsch, Gendron, and Grazzini (2011) have effectively put
to use this “conceptual triad (field-capital-habitus)” as a vantage point to gauge Bourdieu’s

Études scientifiques quantitatives

193

Field, capital, and habitus

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Chiffre 3.
documents. (c) Bar chart of Bourdieu’s triad according to occurrences of the concept capital in the data set.

(un) Bar chart of Bourdieu’s triad according to occurrences of the codes. (b) Bar chart of Bourdieu’s triad according to the number of

Études scientifiques quantitatives

194

Field, capital, and habitus

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Chiffre 4. Text mining network based on the co-occurrence of author-assigned keywords.

impact on other fields (the fields of organizational analysis and accounting, respectivement). More
recent studies (Doblytė, 2019; Millar, 2021) also employ this perspective of the triad. De la même manière,
the content analysis and the detailed reading of documents ground this section, which focuses
on how the key concepts in the triad have been used. Bourdieu’s thought is broader than the
triad, and “it rests not on three but on six conceptual pillars (the triad plus doxa, symbolic
pouvoir, and reflexivity)» (Wacquant, 2014, p. 125). Besides the triad, these three other con-
cepts have therefore been used to code the texts (together with other concepts that have
emerged from the data). Cependant, because “field,” “capital,” and “habitus” occur with signif-
icant frequency in the corpus of the present review, the discussion of the results is structured in
sections corresponding to the elements of the triad.

3.2.1.

Field

Spatial metaphors are not uncommon in bibliometrics (Hammarfelt, 2020), which is a crucial
factor for understanding how Bourdieu has been received in this field. In Bourdieu’s concep-
tual framework, social fields are spaces that possess three dimensions (Salö, 2020): (un) le
physical and material dimension (c'est à dire., a geographic space that human agents inhabit and
the materiality of their practices); (b) a social dimension (c'est à dire., the relations between agents
in the field); et (c) a semantic dimension (c'est à dire., the meanings exchanged through communi-
cation). The bibliometrics literature has focused on (b) et (c), often combining his field theory
with theoretical approaches established in this research domain. Bourdieu’s idea of a “social
topology” based on the relations between agents is translated into a topology of relations
between documents or, less often, authors. The organizational (Whitley, 2000) et le

Études scientifiques quantitatives

195

Field, capital, and habitus

cybernetic (Leydesdorff, 2011) approach in science studies have played a key role in reinter-
preting Bourdieu’s topology according to bibliometric terminology and therefore deserve
special mention. According to Whitley (2000), scientific fields are work organizations with
a cognitive dimension characterized by degrees of “task uncertainty” and a social dimension
determined by the “mutual dependency” of the scientists upon each other in performing
their everyday work tasks and in making a decision (par exemple., where to publish their research).
Several studies have associated the Bourdieusian conceptualization of the scientific field with
Whitley’s organizational account of science (Gómez-Ferri, González-Alcaide, & Llopis-Goig,
2019; Hammarfelt, 2011, 2018; Hyland, 2003; Prpić, 2007; Sheble, 2017). The connection
between Bourdieu and Whitley is perhaps most evident in the works of Loet Leydesdorff,
who combines Bourdieu’s idea of the relative autonomy of the scientific fields with a cyber-
netic perspective. From this standpoint, a research field is a relatively autonomous subsystem
in the system of science, which is a subsystem within society. Further down in the hierarchies
of systems, a field is a “self-organization of cultural constructs” that follows the cybernetic
principle of autopoiesis (Leydesdorff, 2011, p. 398). According to Bourdieu (1975b), sociale
fields (the scholarly field being one of them) possess relative autonomy, which agrees with
the conceptualization of scientific fields as self-sustained work organizations (Whitley, 2000)
or cybernetic systems that evolve based on their internal feedback (Leydesdorff, 2011). Le
idea of the relative autonomy of fields—or “spaces of meanings,” to use Leydesdorff’s
phrasing—also appears in the literature dedicated to the institutionalization of fields and the
conceptual identification of disciplines (Dolfsma & Leydesdorff, 2010; Hammarfelt, 2020;
Pierce, 1992; Sugimoto & Weingart, 2015). En fait, according to Bourdieu (1985un), a discipline
is a scientific champ that has undergone “institutionalization.” In other words, the champ has
its formally accepted “means of knowledge production,” such as specialized “associations,
réunions, journaux,” the rights to grant academic degrees and titles, and to choose “official
representatives” (Bourdieu, 2004, p. 50). Sociology is a discipline because of its established
means of knowledge production, even if it is intellectually “scattered” by diverse points of
view and schools of thought (Bourdieu, 2002). This discipline is, at least to Bourdieu’s eyes,
a “pariah science that is always under suspicion for its supposed political leanings” (Bourdieu,
2005, p. 10). Cependant, sociology is also less interesting for the agents of the political champ
than the higher status “state science” of economics (Bourdieu, 2005, p. 10). Subsequently, le
risk of losing autonomy from the political champ is higher for the latter than for the former. Dans
the data set identified for this review, Bourdieu’s view on “discipline” is mentioned concerning
the “strong connection between discipline and power” and contrasted with the work of
Bourdieu’s colleague at the Collége de France, Michel Foucault (Hammarfelt, 2020, p. 246).
In the paper by Sugimoto and Weingart (2015), Bourdieu’s conception of “discipline” is asso-
ciated with the social connotation of disciplinarity, which is based on personal relationships
and networks, a shared habitus, and common interests. A noteworthy element is that, according
to Bourdieu (2004), the description of the struggles between physicists and engineers for
identity and resources portrayed in the book by Gingras (1991) is emblematic of the social
and power component of the discipline as institutionalized champ.

Several sources have focused on the interdisciplinarity of science fields and their disci-
plinary boundaries (Hammarfelt, 2018; Horta & Santos, 2020; Shibayama & Wang, 2020;
Sugimoto & Weingart, 2015). This literature could be read as a sign of bibliometric research’s
more pressing interest in the interaction between fields compared with Bourdieu’s original
sociology of science—if the criticisms of Bourdieu’s emphasis on the autonomy of scientific
fields, discussed in Section 1.2., are considered (Burawoy, 2018; Eyal, 2013). On this topic,
cependant, it is crucial to remember that several bibliometrics papers emphasize the relative

Études scientifiques quantitatives

196

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

autonomy of the domain of journals from the actual relations between authors (Katchanov &
Markova, 2017; Katchanov, Markova, & Shmatko, 2016; Leydesdorff, 2011).

Bourdieu’s topology of fields is intrinsically social and cognitive. Separating the cognitive
organization of intellectual—scientific and artistic—fields from their social organization is, pour
Bourdieu (1985un), a fallacy because this operation legitimizes existing power relationships, comme
the field of German philosophy exemplifies (Bourdieu, 1991c). The traditional emphasis on
the cognitive dimension of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy (c'est à dire., his theories and concepts)
disentangles intellectual from social relations. According to Bourdieu, Heidegger’s view of
philosophy as the foundation of any other type of knowledge stems from his position as a pro-
fessor at the dawn of the Third Reich, when the role of philosophy professors was declining
because of the competition brought forward by emerging social sciences. Interpreting research
fields as sociocognitive structures is also a perspective rooted in the bibliometrics tradition
(Hammarfelt, 2018), as shown by the sources using the term sociocognitive (Díaz-Faes &
Bordons, 2017; Gingras, 2008; Sheble, 2017). En particulier, Díaz-Faes and Bordons (2017)
consider acknowledgments as sociocognitive reflections of a scholarly community, et
Gingras (2008, p. 78) proposes the study of cocitation relations as a historical “socio-cognitive
analysis” of the collective citation behavior of physicists.

Scientific fields are spaces of power struggles for the control of the means of knowledge pro-
duction, c'est, for scientific authority as embodied in “technical capacity” and “social power”
(Calabrese, 1992, p. 208). The Bourdeusian theme of asymmetric power relations has emerged
in studies focused on the skewness of publication and citation patterns. Even before Bourdieu’s
most popularized works were published, he was cited in a paper on “scientometric patterns”
(Haitun, 1982). Studies on distributions and normality (Ivancheva, 2001), models of knowledge
diffusion (Vitanov & Ausloos, 2012), and citation distributions (Katchanov & Markova, 2015)
are also focused on the skewed nature of publication and citation patterns.

Bibliometric literature has referred to Bourdieu’s concept of power as the creation or con-
solidation of asymmetric relations in the field and has focused on topics as diverse as gender
inequality (Olinto & Leta, 2011), language bias in evaluating research (Frey & Pommerehne,
1988; Vasconcelos, Sorenson et al., 2009), disparities between senior and junior researchers
(Larivière, 2012), and the ranking of scientists, journaux, and universities (Gingras, 2016).

Bibliometrics scholars have used Bourdieu’s methods far less frequently than his concepts.
They have often reinterpreted his field theory as connections between authors (par exemple., coauthor-
ship), références, or citations, par exemple., cocitation and bibliographic coupling, or words in the text
(par exemple., topic modeling and coword analysis) (Yan, 2014). In their study on Russian physics,
Katchanov et al. (2016) replicate the approach of Homo academicus (Bourdieu, 1988),
although employing multidimensional scaling rather than multiple correspondence analysis.
On this topic, mathematicians (and Bourdieu’s former collaborators) Brigitte Le Roux and Henry
Rouanet wrote that multidimensional scaling dominated multiscale statistics, whereas corre-
spondence analysis was left “underutilized” (Le Roux & Rouanet, 2004, p. 14). In the literature
set of this review, cependant, correspondence analysis has been applied in the article by Paul-
Hus, Díaz-Faes et al. (2017) to investigate acknowledgment practices. Other examples of the
use of correspondence analysis are found in the paper by Pandiella-Dominique and Bautista-
Puig (2018) on sustainability research, the article by Brahimi and Fordant (2017) on the citation
impact of the social theorist Edward Said, and the more recent paper by Schwemmer and
Wieczorek (2020) on the divide between quantitative and qualitative methods in sociology.

Plus généralement, methodological diversity reigns among the studies that refer to Bourdieu.
Coauthorship is used as a proxy for collaboration (Forte, 2017). Coauthorship and mentions in

Études scientifiques quantitatives

197

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

blogs (Roth & Cointet, 2010) but also cocitation (Zeng, Shen et al., 2019) are used for com-
munity detection. Scholarly journals as “spaces of meanings” are studied through factor
analysis by Leydesdorff (2011), whereas Roth and Cointet (2010) analyze the field as the
space defined by the relations between agents—a specific community of scientists—rather
than those between journals. De plus, in bibliometrics, there have been various concep-
tualizations of “field.” As mentioned by one reviewer of the present article, it suffices to
consider the discussion regarding “field-normalization,” a topic discussed in the review’s
data set in several sources (Costas, Perianes-Rodríguez, & Ruiz-Castillo, 2017; Leydesdorff,
2021; Lietz, 2020; Sugimoto & Larivière, 2018). Discussing the concept of “field” in biblio-
metrics without referring to Bourdieu’s champ might be more appropriate for the research
questions driving that specific line of inquiry, which also holds for documents that include
references to Bourdieu. En fait, the review’s data set comprises documents that have utilized
Bourdieu’s framework to a more significant extent—the case of Physics and the rise of scientific
research in Canada (Gingras, 1991) is emblematic, as discussed earlier on in this section—but
also other sources in which a reference to Bourdieu’s champ appears to be just one among the
many, comme, par exemple, in the paper by Sheble (2017). These latter cases are nevertheless helpful
in gauging the influence of Bourdieu because they still suggest an interest in his works.

In sum, Bourdieu’s field theory has been used connected with the topic of the socio-
cognitive organization of the sciences and, from the methodological perspective, mediated
by established bibliometric approaches, such as semantic analyses of texts or coauthorship.

3.2.2. Capital

The concept of capital is associated in the literature with both “evaluative spheres” of a field
(Åström & Hammarfelt, 2019), c'est, the institutional sphere of formal research evaluation
and the sphere of scholars’ reputation in their communities. Bourdieu (1988) considered cita-
tions as proxies for symbolic capital, a view shared by Cronin (1998) and Gingras (Gingras &
Wallace, 2010), the two pioneers of the review’s literature set, as mentioned earlier. Dans ce
perspective, achievements based on citations and citation indexes convey a scholar’s
symbolic capital, a driving force in the reward system of science. Cronin (1998) regarded
Bourdieu’s stance on citations as symbolic assets as a stable ground for a “metatheory of
citation,” responding to Leydesdorff’s (1998) call for a broader conceptual standpoint for
theorizing citation patterns. Hyland (2003) pointed out that Bourdieu’s (1991un) theory of
symbolic capital in Language and symbolic power—a book also influential in Cronin’s (2005)
interpretation of citations as symbolic capital—has contributed to the success of the “market
metaphor” that presents citations as the assets of academia.

Fuchs Epstein (2010) has regarded Bourdieu as indebted to Merton’s theory of cumulative
advantage. Nevertheless, on several occasions, Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1975b, 2000; Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992) criticized Merton’s approach as a simplified account of the scientific field
based on the ideal of the scientific norm. In his last lectures at the Collège de France (2001b),
Bourdieu mitigated his criticism of Merton. D'une part, Bourdieu considered the con-
flicts or “war” (in French guerre, see Bourdieu, 2001b, p. 93) between agents as the driving
force of science, rather than the scientific community’s pursuit of common goals as theorized
in Merton’s sociology. On the other hand, for Bourdieu, the norms sanctioned by a scientific
community still regulated which weapons were allowed on the scientific battlefield. Ainsi,
Bourdieu’s position towards Merton is more contradictory than he would have liked to admit.
He criticizes Merton but includes the perspective of the Mertonian norm into his view of
socialization through the habitus of the field. Autrement dit, Merton’s scientific norms add
to Bourdieu’s theory a stable framework in which the conflicts emerge and find solution,

Études scientifiques quantitatives

198

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

strengthening Bourdieu’s (2001b) argument against views on science he deemed relativist
(such as that of Bruno Latour and David Bloor, entre autres). In the review’s data set, refer-
ences to Merton’s book The sociology of science (Merton & Storer, 1973) and his paper on the
Matthew Effect (Merton, 1968)—cited by 62 et 44 documents, respectively—show the coex-
istence of Bourdieu’s concept of capital and Merton’s conception of science as a reward sys-
tem self-regulated through its norms. This coexistence emerges in papers on citations (Cronin,
2000; Cruz-Castro & Sanz-Menendez, 2021; Larivière & Costas, 2016), acknowledgments in
the reward system of science (Paul-Hus, Mongeon et al., 2020), and journal acceptance rates
(Sugimoto, Larivière et al., 2013). En particulier, the article by Desrochers et al. (2018) discusses
the reward system of science from the perspective of Merton’s and Bourdieu’s distinct sociolog-
ical standpoints and their presence in Cronin’s works. From such a vantage point, Desrochers
et autres. (2018) deliver a picture of the state of the art of scholarly communication research as more
and more inclusive in terms of which activities and achievements generate academic
rewards—from authorship, contributorship, and inventorship to citations, acknowledgments,
and social media metrics. As also pointed out on several occasions in the literature set analyzed
in the present review, symbolic capital can have other proxies besides citations: distinctions,
promotions, web hits, media mentions (Cronin & Shaw, 2002), scientific prizes (Bégin-Caouette,
2017; Cronin & Shaw, 2002; Ding & Cronin, 2011; Gingras, 2008; Gingras & Wallace, 2010),
the place in the author byline of coauthored publications (Larivière, Desrochers et al., 2016;
Mongeon & Larivière, 2016), mentions in an article’s acknowledgments (Desrochers et al.,
2017), social media mentions (Diaz-Faes, Bowman, & Costas, 2019), and invitations to take part
in popular science activities such as TED Talks (Sugimoto, Thelwall et al., 2013).

For Bourdieu, symbolic capital depends on illusio, or “the set of rules that defines a field
and legitimizes its existence” (Desrochers et al., 2018, p. 225). The rules that govern fields
are illusio if seen from the perspective of the field and doxa from the agent’s perspective. Ce
latter concept, mentioned in the data set of the review by Bjerregaard (2010), means a belief
system that guides the social agents to act according to the correct behavior for the field
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Altmetrics (or alternative metrics) exemplify how new criteria
for prestige (besides those of traditional metrics) may affect the illusio of the field and
arguably the mindsets of social agents, their doxa. If, or when, alternative metrics become
part of the “rules of the game” of science, agents such as authors or research evaluators might
follow those rules even if they are not forced to do so by formal practices, comme la recherche
assessment exercises and workplace requirements (Desrochers et al., 2017; Díaz-Faes &
Bordons, 2017).

Regarding the method aspects, bibliometricians have reinterpreted the symbolic capital
using their field’s data collection and analytical tools. Par exemple, Gingras and Wallace
(2010) move beyond Bourdieu’s (1975b) reservations about the idea of one scientific commu-
nity (and its underlying Mertonian assumption). The two authors operationalize the concept of
“global symbolic capital” with the total number of citations received in the citation index. Un
author’s “local” dominance in a field corresponds, instead, to the centrality of publications in a
cocitation network and the number of citations received from other authors in that field. Dans
another example of how symbolic capital has been reinterpreted according to bibliometric
notions, Ding and Cronin (2011) differentiate symbolic capital as popularity (to be mentioned
by any paper, regardless of its citation score) and prestige (to be mentioned by highly cited
papers).

Various aspects related to coauthorship appear in the literature that refers to symbolic
capital. Cronin (2005) points out that the significant number of authors typical of highly collab-
orative fields where expensive apparatus is shared—the phenomenon of “hyperauthorship”—

Études scientifiques quantitatives

199

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

complexifies the relation between the symbolic capital gained through authorship and the cor-
responding rewards. The sharing between coauthors of the loss of symbolic capital or
“negative capital obtained when a discovery is found to be fraudulent” is the topic of the paper
by Mongeon and Larivière (2016). From a large-scale analysis of contributorship statements
Larivière et al. (2016) find that “technical” contributions are most often performed by junior
academic staff. In contrast, senior researchers conduct more typically “conceptual” tasks,
indicating a “shift from technical work to more conceptual work as researchers age and rise
in the hierarchy of science” (Larivière et al., 2016, p. 426). De plus, the study’s findings
would support the practice of contributorship statements to increase the transparency of
scientific knowledge production, including the accountability for one’s work that comes with
being an author.

For Bourdieu (2010), statistics are crucial to the success of sociology as a science. Encore, ils
may reproduce established ways of classifying social phenomena and reinforce power hierar-
chies. From such a perspective, citation indexes and bibliometric indicators—that Bourdieu
(1988) mentioned in Homo academicus—possess an “ambiguity” (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 187)
similar to the one he ascribes to the official statistics in sociological work. Publishing research
output in top-ranked journals is a decisive “rule of the game” of science, one key strategy to
secure a position in the field (Gingras, 2016). De la même manière, Ordorika and Lloyd (2015) consider
university rankings as social constructs that transform economic and social capital into sym-
bolic capital and consolidate power inequalities in the global academic market. Nevertheless,
analyses of publication and citation patterns or studies on university rankings can make the
power structures more visible. Par exemple, university rankings can be used to operationalize
the notion of “elite status,” as the paper by Siler (2013) effectively shows.

Research collaboration can generate more or less symbolic capital according to the prestige
of who is involved. Cependant, collaboration always increases social capital—the second most
mentioned type of capital—although often in texts more directly relevant to a specific national
contexte (Djuric, Dobrota, & Filipovic, 2020; Prpić, 2007; Vasconcelos et al., 2009). Some
papers derived tools and methods from social network analysis applied to coauthorship
(Abbasi et al., 2014; Niu, 2014). Several authors (Forte, 2017; Letina, 2016; Martín-Alcázar,
Ruiz-Martínez, & Sánchez-Gardey, 2019; Rost, Teichert, & Pilkington, 2017) mention
Bourdieu’s notion of social capital together with that of Robert D. Putman, James Coleman,
and Ronald S. Burt (Forte, 2017; Letina, 2016; Martín-Alcázar et al., 2019; Rost et al., 2017).

Enfin, the concept of “scientific capital," c'est, the symbolic capital typical of the field of
science (Bourdieu, 1975b) is also mentioned in the literature (Desrochers, Bowman et al., 2015;
Desrochers et al., 2017, 2018; Ernø-Kjølhede & Hansson, 2011; Olinto & Leta, 2015), bien que
less often compared with symbolic and social capital.

3.2.3. Habitus

The third concept of the triad, habitus, is also found in the literature, although to a minor
extent. Some authors have focused on particular aspects of habitus formation, in particular,
social class background (Andersen, 2001; Chiappa & Perez Mejias, 2019), the professional
habitus (Herring, 1999), genre (Olinto & Leta, 2011), and academic seniority (Larivière,
2010un, 2010b; Larivière et al., 2016). Andersen (2001) finds that access to elite positions at
Danish universities is more limited for those with a working-class upbringing (even if subse-
quent socialization after entering the scientific field mitigates the effects of class origin). Son
conclusion agrees with Bourdieu’s (1988) findings on French academia and recent work on
Chilean universities (Chiappa & Perez Mejias, 2019). Several studies by Larivière (Larivière,

Études scientifiques quantitatives

200

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

2010un, 2010b; Larivière et al., 2016) focus on the junior staff’s socialization into their role of inde-
pendent researchers. In PhD programs, acquiring the habitus of the field explains the correlation
between a higher number of articles written by Québécois PhD students throughout their doc-
toral program and their later prolificacy after completing the doctoral program (Larivière, 2012).
Plus récemment, Bes, Lamie, and Maisonobe (2021) have provided a compelling analysis of the
socialization of PhD students based on copublishing between doctoral students and members of
thesis committees at a French university. The topic of gender differences in science is discussed in
several papers (Larivière, Vignola-Gagne et al., 2011; Leta, Olinto et al., 2013; Sheble, 2014) et
are conceptualized as habitus by Olinto and Leta (2011). En particulier, Larivière et al. (2011) refer
in their paper to a key aspect of Bourdieu’s theory of the habitus, which is the internalization of
“dominant” values and their incorporation in the habitus of the “dominated.” As they write,

Given that men still occupy, more often than not, the dominant positions and participate
actively in the formulation of research policies, and that many women also internalized
these “dominant” values, it could happen that even in the current reconfiguration of the
tasks assigned to universities, domains that are considered “significant” will remain for a
long time those of “hard” and “masculine” science (Larivière et al., 2011, p. 495).

Together with other feedback mechanisms at play in the system of science, Par exemple
“publications lead to grants, which lead to further publications” (Larivière et al., 2011, p. 493),
the authors mention this dynamic, the self-reinforcement of dominant values in the formation
of the habitus, which is at the heart of Bourdieu’s sociological thought, most famously in the
book Distinction (Bourdieu, 2010) in regard to aesthetic values, and more specifically in
relation to the topic of gender in Masculine domination (Bourdieu, 2001un). One aspect of
what Bourdieu (2001un, p. 9) termed the “socially constructed division between the sexes” is
the self-reinforcement of “academic gendered stereotypes” mentioned in a paper by Paul-Hus
et autres. (2020). The findings of this study show that “gender disparities generally found in
authorship extend to acknowledgements,” with women acknowledging “proportionally
more women than men do” (Paul-Hus et al., 2020, p. 591). De plus, the breaking down
of the results according to the scholarly disciplines also shows differences that the authors
relate to the male vis-à-vis female dominance in the field in terms of staff composition.

Rather than analyzing which elements influence an agent’s habitus, as in the studies men-
tioned above, other authors associate the habitus of scientists with the topic of bibliometric
indicators in research evaluation (Nielsen & Borjeson, 2019; Olinto & Leta, 2011). In partic-
ular, Alvarado and Arango (2015) discuss how bibliometric terminology has become part of
the scientific habitus of researchers. In their view, attending courses in bibliometrics has facil-
itated the formation of a “bibliometric habitus” among Brazilian authors. This mindset
appraises publication channels based on their bibliometric impact and international reach.
Citizen bibliometrics (Leydesdorff, Wouters, & Bornmann, 2016) c'est, the “nonprofessional
use of bibliometrics by managers and researchers” (Hammarfelt & Rushforth, 2017, p. 170)
could be a valuable perspective to frame Alvarado and Arango’s notion of a “bibliometric
habitus.” The more diffused this “bibliometric habitus” is, the more needed the reflexive atti-
tude advocated by Bourdieu becomes. Gingras (2016) provides a clear example of reflexivity
when discussing the h-index and the journal impact factor’s intrinsic weakness. Cependant,
Leydesdorff (2017) warns against Gingras’ proposal of rational arguments as a countermeasure
against the misuse of bibliometric indicators. These arguments might underestimate that bib-
liometrics has become “the subject of a political economy that its co-constructs” (Leydesdorff,
2017, p. 596). In the light of such a political economy, the need for reflexivity would seem
even more pressing.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

201

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

To summarize the main findings, the three concepts of field, capital, and habitus have been used
as a “social critique” of the asymmetric power relations and inequalities built into the system of
scholarly communication. Most studies focus on one or more of the following aspects: genre
inequality, junior researchers, journals and university ranking systems, and language biases in
research assessment. The most common concepts in the literature are “field” and “symbolic
capital.” Furthermore, Bourdieu’s concept of “field” is harmonized with other well-established
theoretical viewpoints in bibliometrics, such as Merton’s sociology of science and Leydesdorff’s
cybernetic approach to quantitative science studies. En outre, Leydesdorff’s (2021) recherche
shows the weight of Whitley’s (2000) organizational approach in Bourdieu’s reception. Another
important insight gained from the literature review is the theme of the “ambiguity” of biblio-
metrics methods as instruments that can both reinforce the power structures at work in science
and bring such structures to the fore, as in the case of gender inequalities.

With the notable exception of Prpić (2007), the literature has not discussed what Bourdieu
(1991b, p. 7) calls “delegation,” or the transfer of capital from an institution to an individual
agent or a group. This notion could help interpret the transfer of capital in knowledge produc-
tion based on the “capital of social authority in matters of science” that rest on “delegation
from an institution” (Bourdieu, 1991b, p. 7; italics in the original text). Autrement dit, if a
university is “dominant” in the hierarchies of the field, the capital embedded in the institution
is transferred or “delegated” to the individual researchers. When researchers are authorities or,
as Bourdieu writes, possess “capital of strictly scientific authority, which rests upon the recog-
nition granted by the peer competitors” (1991b, p. 7; italics in the original text), the delegation
of power from the university to the researcher becomes less relevant. The connection between
“elite status” and “university rankings” (Siler, 2013) encountered earlier in the review offers a
direction to study the phenomenon by using the position in the university rankings as a proxy
for its “dominance” in the field. Research with a standpoint in systems theory and cybernetics
(Fujigaki, 1998; Leydesdorff, 2011, 2021; Leydesdorff, Petersen, & Ivanova, 2017) could also
help define the dominance of a university beyond its rankings, in particular its position in the
system of “university-industry-government relations” (Leydesdorff, 2021, p. 90).

En outre, bien que, as mentioned in the review, there have been papers that have used
correspondence analysis (Pandiella-Dominique & Bautista-Puig, 2018; Paul-Hus et al., 2017),
further bibliometric research could apply the statistical side of Bourdieu’s work—currently
being developed in quantitative social science by some of Bourdieu’s former collaborators
under the name of Geometric Data Analysis (Le Roux, Bienaise, & Durand, 2019)—to inves-
tigate topics not yet explored with this methodology, par exemple, the power position of pub-
lishers (see Bourdieu, 2008).

On a more general note, it is challenging to establish a field’s instances of “obliteration by
incorporation” (Garfield, 1975) and all the authorities who are taken for granted and thus no
longer explicitly cited. D'une part, given the more significant number of occurrences of
the concept “field” in the data set of this review, one would probably need to look in that direc-
tion to gauge Bourdieusian concepts that have been “incorporated and obliterated.” On the
other hand, the review has shown the presence in the literature of several documents that
address “capital” and “habitus,» (see also the reading list provided as Appendix C in the
Supplementary material), as well as papers that also employ correspondence analysis
(Paul-Hus et al., 2017), Bourdieu’s signature method. The diffusion of a broader conceptual and
methodological “toolbox”not limited to the most recurring concept of champ might well expand
the domain of the notions which become incorporated by their progressive obliteration.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

202

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

The rationale of this critical review has stemmed from the use of Bourdieu’s works by bib-
liometric research and the need to understand in which contexts his thought has been consid-
ered relevant—an operation that Hussey (2010) has earlier pursued for research in Library and
Information Science. It goes without saying that the references to Bourdieu alone do not reveal
anything about the depth of the analysis of the texts that cite his works (or those that do not cite
them at all). References to Bourdieu and the engagement with his thought (from more exten-
sive discussions of the champ and other Bourdeusian concepts to far shorter mentions of his
travaux) derive ultimately from the type of research questions being answered. The review has
nevertheless delivered a picture of a nonnegligible portion of the research output in quantita-
tive science studies. With its surveys of the topics, Bourdieu’s triad first of all, this article
has attempted to cast light on the literature that has invoked Bourdieu’s framework and
incorporated it through references, which are ultimately “indicators of selection processes”
(Leydesdorff, 2021, p. 41). Future research could repeat this operation to look for changes
in perspectives and research priorities, including possible developments in the social and
cognitive relations between bibliometrics (and related fields) and the sociology of science.

Notably, the present review itself comes with limitations. The phenomenon of “obliteration
by incorporation” (Garfield, 1975), according to which well-established ideas do not receive
explicit references in a scientific text, might have caused the exclusion of potentially relevant
literature that did not have explicit references to Bourdieu. Considering only sources available
in English might have meant missing relevant sources in other languages. Data sets of literature
in other languages, particularly French, could address this issue. Dans l'ensemble, this means that
Bourdieu’s thinking may well have had a larger impact on the field of bibliometrics than
can be inferred by studying references to his works in the data set studied here.

To conclude, one might recall Bourdieu’s (1991c) interpretation of Heidegger’s idea of a
premodern era before bureaucracy and technological advances—and statistics—had dehuma-
nized human existence (the Dasein), reducing it to mere numbers (the Das Man). Ainsi, from a
Bourdieusian perspective, statistics can reinforce power structures or provide tools to understand
power relations, the first step toward social change. Donc, acknowledging the ambiguity
of statistics is essential for achieving the goal of reflexivity in quantitative science studies.

REMERCIEMENTS

The author would like to thank his PhD thesis advisors Associate Professor Björn Hammarfelt and
Docteur. Gustaf Nelhans for their guidance in conducting the study, and also Associate Professor
Helena Francke for her precious feedback on an earlier draft of the article. The author is also
grateful to Dr. Rachel Pierce for her help with the English language, to Systematic Review Librarian
Yommine Hjalmarsson for advice on conducting the review, to the research group Knowledge
Infrastructure at the University of Borås for useful feedback, and the Department of Communica-
tion and Learning in Science at Chalmers University of Technology for organizing the PhD Student
Writing Retreat where some of the work was conducted. Enfin, the comments received from the
reviewers and the editor of Quantitative Science Studies have greatly improved the article.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The author has no competing interests.

INFORMATIONS SUR LE FINANCEMENT
No specific funding was received for this study as it is part of the author’s doctoral education
jointly financed by Chalmers University of Technology and the University of Borås.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

203

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

DATA AVAILABILITY

The full data set of the review (Appendix A), as well as the coding scheme (Appendix B), and a
list of suggested readings based on the finding of the study (Appendix C) are available from
Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7437298).

RÉFÉRENCES

Abbasi, UN., Wigand, R.. T., & Hossain, L. (2014). Measuring social
capital through network analysis and its influence on individual
performance. Library & Information Science Research, 36(1),
66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.08.001

Alvarado, R.. U., & Arango, C. R.. (2015). The growth of Brazilian
metrics literature. Journal of Scientometric Research, 4(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.4103/2320-0057.156014

Andersen, H. (2001). The norm of universalism in sciences. Social
origin and gender of researchers in Denmark. Scientometrics,
50(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010521606702

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for
comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics,
11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Åström, F., & Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Conceptualising dimensions
of bibliometric assessment: From resource allocation systems to
evaluative landscapes. In 17th Conference of the International
Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Rome. https://issi
-society.org/publications/issi-conference-proceedings/proceedings
-of-issi-2019/

Bar-Ilan, J.. (2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—
A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2(1), 1–52. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001

Bégin-Caouette, Ô. (2017). Small mighty centers in the global aca-
demic capitalist race: A study of systemic factors contributing to
scientific capital accumulation in Nordic higher education sys-
thèmes (Publication Number 10244504) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&je.
Benzécri, J.-P. (2006). « In memoriam: Pierre Bourdieu» L’@nalyse
des données: Histoire, bilan, projets, …, perspective. Revue
MODULAD (35). https://www.rocq.inria.fr/axis/modulad
/archives/numero-35/Benzecri-35/Benzecri-35.pdf

Bes, M.. P., Lamie, J., & Maisonobe, M.. (2021). Peer-making: Le
interconnections between PhD thesis committee membership
and copublishing. Études scientifiques quantitatives, 2(3), 1048–1070.
https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00143

Bjerregaard, T. (2010). Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-
institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration. Technovation, 30(2),
100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002
Bourdieu, P.. (1975un). Introduction: Méthode scientifique et hiér-
archie sociale des objets. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences
Sociales, 1(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1975.2479

Bourdieu, P.. (1975b). The specificity of the scientific field and the
social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Informa-
tion, 14(6), 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602
Bourdieu, P.. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge
Presse universitaire. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507
Bourdieu, P.. (1980). The aristocracy of culture (R.. Nice, Trans.)
[Bourdieu, P., (1979). La Distinction, Les Éditions de Minuit,
pp. 9–61]. Médias, Culture & Society, 2, 225–254. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1177/016344378000200303

Bourdieu, P.. (1985un). The market of symbolic goods. Poetics, 14(1),

13–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90003-8

Bourdieu, P.. (1985b). The social space and the genesis of groups.
Information (International Social Science Council), 24(2),
195–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901885024002001

Bourdieu, P.. (1986un). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.),
Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education
(pp. 241–258). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679.ch15
Bourdieu, P.. (1986b). L’illusion biographique. Actes de la
Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 62(1), 69–72. https://doi.org
/10.3406/arss.1986.2317

Bourdieu, P.. (1988). Homo academicus (P.. Collier, Trans.). Stanford

Presse universitaire.

Bourdieu, P.. (1991un). Language and symbolic power (J.. B. Thompson,

Trans.). Presse universitaire de Harvard.

Bourdieu, P.. (1991b). The peculiar history of scientific reason. Socio-
logical Forum, 6(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112725
Bourdieu, P.. (1991c). The political ontology of Martin Heidegger.

Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P.. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art

and literature (R.. Johnson, Ed.). Columbia University Press.

Bourdieu, P.. (1996un). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the
literary field. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515
/9781503615861

Bourdieu, P.. (1996b). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field
of power. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515
/9781503615427

Bourdieu, P.. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Université de Stanford

Presse.

Bourdieu, P.. (2001un). Masculine domination. Université de Stanford

Presse.

Bourdieu, P.. (2001b). Science de la science et réflexivité cours du

Collè ge de France (2000–2001). Raisons d’Agir.

Bourdieu, P.. (2002). Questions de sociologie. Les Éditions de

Minuit.

Bourdieu, P.. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Université de

Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P.. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Polity

Presse.

Bourdieu, P.. (2008). A conservative revolution in publishing.
Translation Studies, 1(2), 123–153. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/14781700802113465

Bourdieu, P.. (2010). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement

of taste (R.. Nice, Trans.). Routledge.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J.. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive

sociology. University of Chicago Press.

Brahimi, M.. UN., & Fordant, C. (2017). The controversial receptions
of Edward Said: A sociological analysis of scientific citations.
Sociologica (1). https://doi.org/10.2383/86981

Burawoy, M.. (2018). Making sense of Bourdieu: From demolition to

recuperation and critique. Catalyst, 2(1), 51–87.

Calabrese, UN. (1992). Changing times for scholarly communication:
The case of the electronic journal. Technology in Society, 14(2),
199–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791X(92)90004-T

Calhoun, C. (2013). For the social history of the present. In Bour-
dieu and historical analysis. Duke University Press. https://doi.org
/10.2307/j.ctv1168cx9.6

Champely, S., Fargier, P., & Camy, J.. (2017). Disciplinarity and sport
science in Europe: A statistical and sociological study of ECSS
conference abstracts. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(1),

Études scientifiques quantitatives

204

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1197318,
PubMed: 27344922

Chiappa, R., & Perez Mejias, P.. (2019). Unfolding the direct and
indirect effects of social class of origin on faculty income. Higher
Éducation, 78, 229–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019
-0356-4

Costas, R., Perianes-Rodríguez, UN., & Ruiz-Castillo, J.. (2017). Sur
the quest for currencies of science: Field “exchange rates” for
citations and Mendeley readership. Aslib Journal of Information
Management, 69(5), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01
-2017-0023

Cronin, B. (1998). Metatheorizing citation. Scientometrics, 43(1),

45–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458393

Cronin, B. (2000). Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics. Journal
of Documentation, 56(4), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1108
/EUM0000000007123

Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its

rewards. Scarecrow Press.

Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Banking (sur) different forms of
symbolic capital. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 53(14), 1267–1270. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1002/asi.10140

Crothers, C., Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R.. (2020). Citation con-
cept analysis (CCA) of Robert K. Merton’s book Social theory and
social structure: How often are certain concepts from the book
cited in subsequent publications? Études scientifiques quantitatives,
1(2), 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00029

Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menendez, L. (2021). What should be
rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promo-
tion. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), 101196. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.joi.2021.101196

da Silva, J.. UN. T. (2021). The i100-index, i1000-index and
i10,000-index: Expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar
h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher clas-
sification. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3667–3672. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s11192-020-03831-9

Desrochers, N., Bowman, T. D., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P., Quan-
Haase, UN., … Tsou, UN. (2015). Authorship, brevets, citations,
acknowledgments, tweets, reader counts and the multifaceted
reward system of science. Proceedings of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 52(1), 1–4. https://doi.org
/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010013

Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, UN., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P.,
… Larivière, V. (2018). Authorship, citations, acknowledgments
and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multiface-
ted reward system of science. Social Science Information, 57(2),
223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417752089

Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, UN., & Pecoskie, J.. (2017). Five decades
of gratitude: A meta-synthesis of acknowledgments research.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,
68(12), 2821–2833. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23903

Díaz-Faes, UN. UN., & Bordons, M.. (2017). Making visible the invisi-
ble through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 576–590.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0008

Diaz-Faes, UN. UN., Bowman, T. D., & Costas, R.. (2019). Towards a
second generation of “social media metrics”: Characterizing
Twitter communities of attention around science. PLOS ONE,
14(5), e0216408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0216408, PubMed: 31116783

Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures
of scholarly esteem. Information Processing & Management,
47(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2010.01.002

Djuric, M., Dobrota, M., & Filipovic, J.. (2020). Complexity-based
quality indicators for human and social capital in science and
recherche: The case of Serbian Homeland versus Diaspora. Scien-
tometrics, 124, 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020
-03428-2

Doblytė, S. (2019). Bourdieu’s theory of fields: Towards under-
standing help-seeking practices in mental distress. Social Theory
& Health, 17(3), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-019
-00105-0

Dolfsma, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The citation field of evolu-
tionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(5),
645–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-010-0172-6

Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational
analyse. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11186-007-9052-y

Ernø-Kjølhede, E., & Hansson, F. (2011). Measuring research perfor-
mance during a changing relationship between science and
society. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 131–143. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3152/095820211X12941371876544

Eyal, G. (2013). Spaces between fields. In P. S. Gorski (Ed.), Bour-
dieu and historical analysis (pp. 158–182). Duke University
Presse. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1168cx9.11

Forte, C. E. (2017). Seeking social capital and expertise in a newly-
formed research community: A co-author analysis (Publication
Nombre 10636476) [Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine
University].

Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1988). The American domination
among eminent economists. Scientometrics, 14(1–2), 97–110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020245

Fuchs Epstein, C. (2010). The contributions of Robert K. Merton to
culture theory. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Robert K. Merton: Sociology
of science and sociology as science (pp. 79–93). Columbia Uni-
versity Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/calh15112-004

Fujigaki, Oui. (1998). Filling the gap between discussions on science
and scientists’ everyday activities: Applying the autopoiesis sys-
tem theory to scientific knowledge. Social Science Information,
37(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901898037001001
Garfield, E. (1975). The “obliteration phenomenon” in science—
And the advantage of being obliterated! Essays of an Information
Scientist, 2, 396–398. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays
/v2p396y1974-76.pdf

Garfield, E. (2004). The intended consequences of Robert K.
Merton. Scientometrics, 60(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
SCIE.0000027308.27185.30

Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics
visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal de
Informetrics, 3(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009
Gingras, Oui. (1991). Physics and the rise of scientific research in

Canada. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Gingras, Oui. (2008). The collective construction of scientific
mémoire: The Einstein-Poincaré connection and its discontents,
1905–2005. History of Science, 46(1), 75–114. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1177/007327530804600103

Gingras, Oui. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and
abuses. AVEC Presse. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10719.001.0001
Gingras, Y., & Wallace, M.. L. (2010). Why it has become more
difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A bibliometric analysis
of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes
(1901–2007). Scientometrics, 82(2), 401–412. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s11192-009-0035-9

Golsorkhi, D., & Huault, je. (2006). Pierre Bourdieu: Critique et
réflexivité comme attitude analytique. Revue Francaise de
Gestion, 165(6), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.165.15-34

Études scientifiques quantitatives

205

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

Gómez-Ferri, J., González-Alcaide, G., & Llopis-Goig, R.. (2019).
Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical
approach based on the researchers’ perception. Journal of Infor-
metrics, 13(4), 100980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019
.100980

Grant, M.. J., & Booth, UN. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis
de 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Infor-
mation & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x, PubMed: 19490148

Haitun, S. D. (1982). Stationary scientometric distributions—
Part III. The role of the Zipf distribution. Scientometrics, 4(3),
181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02021059

Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base
of literature studies: Citation analysis of highly cited monographs.
Scientometrics, 86(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-010-0314-5

Hammarfelt, B. (2018). What is a discipline? The conceptualization
of research areas and their operationalization in bibliometric
recherche. In 23rd International Conference on Science and Tech-
nology Indicators (STI 2018), September 12–14, Leiden, Le
Netherlands.

Hammarfelt, B. (2020). Discipline. Knowledge Organization, 47(3),

244–256. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2020-3-244

Hammarfelt, B., & Rushforth, UN. D. (2017). Indicators as judgment
devices: An empirical study of citizen bibliometrics in research
evaluation. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 169–180. https://doi.org
/10.1093/reseval/rvx018

Herring, S. D. (1999). The value of interdisciplinarity: A study based
on the design of internet search engines. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 50(4), 358–365. https://doi.org
/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:4<358::AID-ASI14>3.0.CO
;2-7

Horta, H., & Santos, J.. M.. (2020). The Multidimensional Research
Agendas Inventory-Revised (MDRAI-R): Factors shaping
researchers’ research agendas in all fields of knowledge. Quan-
titative Science Studies, 1(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss
_a_00017

Hussey, L. (2010). Social capital, symbolic violence, and fields of
cultural production: Pierre Bourdieu and library and information
science. In G. J.. Leckie, L. M.. Given, & J.. E. Buschman (Éd.),
Critical theory for library and information science (pp. 41–51).
ABC-CLIO.

Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and
promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204

Ivancheva, L. E. (2001). The non-Gaussian nature of bibliometric
and scientometric distributions: A new approach to interpretation.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Tech-
nology, 52(13), 1100–1105. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1176
Jackson, K., & Bazeley, P.. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with

NVivo. Sage.

Jenkins, R.. (2014). Pierre Bourdieu (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://est ce que je

.org/10.4324/9781315832111

Jiang, F., & Liu, N. C. (2018). The hierarchical status of international
academic awards in social sciences. Scientometrics, 117(3),
2091–2115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2928-y

Katchanov, Oui. L., & Markova, Oui. V. (2015). On a heuristic point of
view concerning the citation distribution: Introducing the
Wakeby distribution. SpringerPlus, 4(1), 94. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1186/s40064-015-0821-1, PubMed: 25763305

Katchanov, Oui. L., & Markova, Oui. V. (2017). The “space of physics
journals”: Topological structure and the Journal Impact Factor.

Scientometrics, 113(1), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-017-2471-2

Katchanov, Oui. L., Markova, Oui. V., & Shmatko, N. UN. (2016). Comment
physics works: Scientific capital in the space of physics institu-
tion. Scientometrics, 108(2), 875–893. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11192-016-2005-3

Korom, P.. (2020). The prestige elite in sociology: Toward a collec-
tive biography of the most cited scholars (1970–2010). Sociolog-
ical Quarterly, 61(1), 128–163. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/00380253.2019.1581037, PubMed: 32256226

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its
methodology (4th ed.). Sage. https://doi.o rg/10.4135
/9781071878781

Lacity, M.. C., & Janson, M.. UN. (1994). Understanding qualitative
data: A framework of text analysis methods. Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems, 11(2), 137–155. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1080/07421222.1994.11518043

Larivière, V. (2010un). A bibliometric analysis of Quebec’s PhD
students’ contribution to the advancement of knowledge
(Publication Number NR68486) [Doctoral dissertation, McGill
University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&je.

Larivière, V. (2010b). On the shoulders of students? A bibliometric
study of PhD students’ contribution to the advancement of
connaissance. In Book of Abstracts of the Eleventh International
Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 155–157).
Leiden, The Netherlands.

Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution
of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientomet-
rics, 90(2), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6
Larivière, V., & Costas, R.. (2016). How many is too many? On the
relationship between research productivity and impact. PLOS
ONE, 11(9), e0162709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0162709, PubMed: 27682366

Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus,
UN., & Sugimoto, C. R.. (2016). Contributorship and division of
labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3),
417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046, PubMed:
28948891

Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagne, E., Villeneuve, C., Gelinas, P., &
Gingras, Oui. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, produc-
tivity and impact: An analysis of Quebec university professors.
Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-011-0369-oui

Le Roux, B., Bienaise, S., & Durand, J.-L. (2019). Combinatorial
inference in geometric data analysis. CRC Press. https://doi.org
/10.1201/9781315155289

Le Roux, B., & Rouanet, H. (2004). Geometric data analysis: Depuis
correspondence analysis to structured data analysis. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2236-0

Le Roux, B., & Rouanet, H. (2010). Multiple correspondence anal-

ysis. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412993906

Leta, J., Olinto, G., Batista, P.. D., & Borges, E. P.. (2013). Gender and
academic roles in graduate programs: Analyses of Brazilian gov-
ernment data. In Proceedings of the 14th International Confer-
ence on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 796–810).

Letina, S. (2016). Network and actor attribute effects on the perfor-
mance of researchers in two fields of social science in a small
peripheral community. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 571–595.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.03.007

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Leydesdorff, L. (1998). Theories of citation? Scientometrics, 43(1),

5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458391

Leydesdorff, L. (2011). “Meaning” as a sociological concept: UN
review of the modeling, mapping and simulation of the

Études scientifiques quantitatives

206

Field, capital, and habitus

communication of knowledge and meaning. Social Science
Information, 50(3–4), 391–413. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/0539018411411021

Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses
and abuses. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 595–597. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.002

Leydesdorff, L. (2021). The evolutionary dynamics of discursive
connaissance: Communication-theoretical perspectives on an
empirical philosophy of science. Springer. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/978-3-030-59951-5

Leydesdorff, L., Petersen, UN. M., & Ivanova, je. (2017). Self-organiza-
tion of meaning and the reflexive communication of information.
Social Science Information, 56(1), 4–27. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/0539018416675074, PubMed: 28232771

Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016). Professional
and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences
in the development and use of indicators—A state-of-the-art
report. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2129–2150. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1007/s11192-016-2150-8, PubMed: 27942086

Lietz, H. (2020). Drawing impossible boundaries: Field delineation
of Social Network Science. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2841–2876.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03527-0

Malsch, B., Gendron, Y., & Grazzini, F. (2011). Investigating inter-
disciplinary translations The influence of Pierre Bourdieu on
accounting literature. Accounting Auditing & Accountability
J o u r n a l , 2 4 ( 2 ) , 1 9 4 – 2 2 8 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 0 8
/09513571111100681

Maltseva, D., & Batagelj, V. (2020). iMetrics: The development of
the discipline with many names. Scientometrics, 125(1), 313–359.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03604-4

Martín-Alcázar, F., Ruiz-Martínez, M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G.
(2019). Assessing social capital in academic research teams: UN
measurement instrument proposal. Scientometrics, 121(2),
917–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03212-x

Merton, R.. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science,
159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56,
PubMed: 5634379

Merton, R.. K., & Storer, N. W. (1973). The sociology of science:
Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago
Presse.

Millar, J.. (2021). The gilded path: Capital, habitus and illusio in the
fund management field. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 34(8), 1906–1931. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12
-2019-4320

Milojević, S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Information metrics
(iMetrics): A research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?
Scientometrics, 95(1), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-012-0861-z

Mongeon, P., & Larivière, V. (2016). Costly collaborations: Le
impact of scientific fraud on co-authors’ careers. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3),
535–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23421

Nielsen, M.. W., & Borjeson, L. (2019). Gender diversity in the man-
agement field: Does it matter for research outcomes? Research
Policy, 48(7), 1617–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019
.03.006

Niu, X. S. (2014). International scientific collaboration between
Australia and China: A mixed-methodology for investigating
the social processes and its implications for national innovation
systèmes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85,
58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.014

Olinto, G., & Leta, J.. (2011). Gender (im)balances in teaching and
research activities in Brazil. In Proceedings of the International

Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 618–625).
https://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2011/ ISSI_2011
_Proceedings_Vol2_08.pdf

Olinto, G., & Leta, J.. (2015). Scientific production in Brazilian
research institutes: Do institutional context, background charac-
teristics and academic tasks contribute to gender differences? Dans
UN. UN. Salah, Oui. Tonta, UN. UN. UN. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Éd.),
Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of
Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference (pp. 673–683).
https://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2015/0673.pdf

Ordorika, JE., & Lloyd, M.. (2015). International rankings and the
contest for university hegemony. Journal of Education Policy,
30(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.979247
Pandiella-Dominique, UN., & Bautista-Puig, N. (2018). Cartographie
growth and trends in the category “Green and Sustainable
Science and Technology”. In 23rd International Conference on
Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018). Leiden, Le
Netherlands.

Paul-Hus, UN., Díaz-Faes, UN. UN., Sainte-Marie, M., Desrochers, N.,
Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Beyond funding: Acknowledge-
ment patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences. PLOS
ONE, 12(10), e0185578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone
.0185578, PubMed: 28976996

Paul-Hus, UN., Mongeon, P., Sainte-Marie, M., & Larivière, V. (2020).
Who are the acknowledgees? An analysis of gender and academic
status. Études scientifiques quantitatives, 1(2), 582–598. https://doi.org
/10.1162/qss_a_00036

Pierce, S. J.. (1992). On the origin and meaning of bibliometric indi-
cators—Journals in the social-sciences, 1886–1985. Journal de
the American Society for Information Science, 43(7), 477–487.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199208)43:7<477::AID -ASI2>3.0.CO;2-E

Prix, C. (2022). Syntheses synthesized: A look back at Grant and
Booth’s review typology. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 17(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30093
Prpić, K. (2007). Changes of scientific knowledge production and
research productivity in a transitional society. Scientometrics,
72(3), 487–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1760-6
Rost, K., Teichert, T., & Pilkington, UN. (2017). Social network
analytics for advanced bibliometrics: Referring to actor roles of
management journals instead of journal rankings. Scientometrics,
112(3), 1631–1657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2441-8
Roth, C., & Cointet, J.. P.. (2010). Social and semantic coevolution in
knowledge networks. Social Networks, 32(1), 16–29. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2009.04.005

Salö, L. (2020). The spatial logic of linguistic practice: Bourdieusian
inroads into language and internationalization in academe.
Language in Society, 51(1), 119–141. https://est ce que je.org/10.1017
/S0047404520000743

Schwemmer, C., & Wieczorek, Ô. (2020). The methodological
divide of sociology: Evidence from two decades of journal
publications. Sociology, 54(1), 3–21. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/0038038519853146

Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., Secinaro, UN., Muthurangu, V., & Biancone,
P.. (2021). The role of artificial intelligence in healthcare: A struc-
tured literature review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision
Making, 21(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01488
-9, PubMed: 33836752

Sheble, L. (2014). Diffusion of meta-analysis, systematic review, et
related research synthesis methods: Motifs, contexts, and impact
(Publication Number 3622474) [Doctoral dissertation, The Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses A&je.

Études scientifiques quantitatives

207

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

/

.

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Field, capital, and habitus

Sheble, L. (2017). Macro-level diffusion of a methodological knowl-
edge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011. Journal
of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(12),
2693–2708. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23864

Shibayama, S., & Wang, J.. (2020). Measuring originality in science.
Scientometrics, 122(1), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-019-03263-0

Siler, K. (2013). Citation choice and innovation in science studies.
Scientometrics, 95(1), 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192
-012-0881-8

Sismondo, S. (2011). Bourdieu’s rationalist science of science:
Some promises and limitations. Cultural Sociology, 5(1), 83–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975510389728

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: Un
overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104,
333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Strand, M., & Lizardo, Ô. (2021). For a probabilistic sociology: A his-
tory of concept formation with Pierre Bourdieu. Theory and Society,
51(3), 399–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-021-09452-2
Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring Research: What
Everyone Needs to Know®. Presse universitaire d'Oxford. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190640118.001.0001

Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., Ni, C., & Cronin, B. (2013). Journal
acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and
relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4),
897–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007

Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., Larivière, V., Tsou, UN., Mongeon, P.,
& Macaluso, B. (2013). Scientists popularizing science: Charac-
teristics and impact of TED talk presenters. PLOS ONE, 8(4),
e62403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062403,
PubMed: 23638069

Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015). The kaleidoscope of disci-
plinarity. Journal of Documentation, 71(4), 775–794. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082

Sutton, UN., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, UN. (2019). Meeting the
review family: Exploring review types and associated information
retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal,
36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ hir.12276, PubMed:
31541534

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer,
a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics,

84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3,
PubMed: 20585380

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization

using VOSviewer. ISSI Newsletter, 7, 50–54.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2022). VOSviewer Manual: Manual
for VOSviewer version 1.6.18. https://www.vosviewer.com
/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.18.pdf

Vasconcelos, S., Sorenson, M., Batista, P., Ana, M.. S., & Leta, J..
(2009). The effect of the linguistic landscape of today’s science
on the performance indicators of researchers from a Latin
American country: A trend for the region? In 12th International
Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and
Informetric (pp. 330–337).

Vitanov, N. K., & Ausloos, M.. R.. (2012). Knowledge epidemics and
population dynamics models for describing idea diffusion. In A.
Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P.. Besselaar (Éd.), Compréhension
complex systems (pp. 69–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007
/978-3-642-23068-4_3

Wacquant, L. (2002). The sociological life of Pierre Bourdieu. Inter-
national Sociology, 17(4), 549–556. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/0268580902017004005

Wacquant, L. (2014). Putting habitus in its place: Rejoinder to the
symposium. Body & Society, 20(2), 118–139. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1177/1357034X14530845

Wacquant, L. (2018). Four transversal principles for putting Bour-
dieu to work. Anthropological Theory, 18(1), 3–17. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1177/1463499617746254

Whitley, R.. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the

sciences (2nd ed.). Presse universitaire d'Oxford.

Yacine, T., Wacquant, L., & Ingram, J.. (2004). Pierre Bourdieu in
Algeria at war: Notes on the birth of an engaged ethnosociology.
E t h n o g r a p h y, 5 ( 4 ) , 4 8 7 – 5 0 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 11 7 7
/1466138104050703

Yan, E. (2014). Towards a systematic approach for studying schol-
arly communication through scholarly networks (Publication
Nombre 3587518) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Zeng, UN., Shen, Z., Zhou, J., Fan, Y., Di, Z., … Havlin, S. (2019).
Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics. Nature
Communications, 10(1), 3439. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467
-019-11401-8, PubMed: 31366884

Études scientifiques quantitatives

208

je

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

m

je
t
.

/

e
d
toi
q
s
s
/
un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

je

F
/

/

/

/

4
1
1
8
6
2
0
7
8
4
2
2
q
s
s
_
un
_
0
0
2
3
2
p
d

.

/

F

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Télécharger le PDF