, Volume 93, Issue 2, pp 459–471 | Cite as

Hybrid documents co-citation analysis: making sense of the interaction between science and technology in technology diffusion



The paper presents a methodology called hybrid documents co-citation analysis, for studying the interaction between science and technology in technology diffusion. Our approach rests mostly on patent citation, cluster analysis and network analysis. More specifically, with the patents citing Smalley RE in Derwent innovations index as the data sets, the paper implemented hybrid documents co-citation network through two procedures. Then spectrum cluster algorithm was used to reveal the knowledge structure in technology diffusion. After that, with the concordance between network properties and technology diffusion mechanisms, three indicators containing degree, betweenness and citation half-life, were calculated to discuss the basic documents in the pivotal position during the technology diffusion. At last, the paper summarized the hybrid documents co-citation analysis in practise, thus concluded that science and technology undertook different functions and acted dominatingly in the different period of technology diffusion, though they were co-activity all the time.


Hybrid documents co-citation Technology diffusion Cluster analysis Network analysis 



This paper was initiated at the 13th ISSI Conference, Duban, South Africa. The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. And the authors also like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Social Science Foundation of China (Project No.08BTQ025) and Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (SRFDP) (20110041110034).


  1. Alencar, M., Porter, A., & Antunes, A. (2007). Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(9), 1661–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, S., & Aston, A. (2005). The business of nanotech. Business Week, 64–71.Google Scholar
  3. Bhattacharya, S., Kretschmer, H., & Meyer, M. (2003). Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58(2), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton, R., & Kebler, R. (1960). The “half-life” of some scientific and technical literatures. American Documentation, 11(1), 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, S., Lai, K., & Chang, S. (2009). Exploring technology diffusion and classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl 1), 5303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, C., Ibekwe SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010a). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, C., Zhang, J., & Vogeley, M. S. (2010b). Making sense of the evolution of a scientific domain: a visual analytic study of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey research. Scientometrics, 83(3), 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, M., Kim, K., & Cho, Y. (2010a). A study on the relationship between technology diffusion and new product diffusion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(5), 796–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, P., Su, H., & Wu, F. (2010b). Quantitative mapping of patented technology—The case of electrical conducting polymer nanocomposite. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3), 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glanzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1998). Linkage between patents and papers: An interim EPO/US comparison. Scientometrics, 41(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nock, R., & Nielsen, F. (2006). On weighting clustering. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 28, 1223–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noh, K., Kim, W., Kwon, O., Yae, Y., & Choi, H. (2007). Tracing knowledge flows using science and technology indicators. Information-Yamaguchi, 10(3), 327.Google Scholar
  20. Park, H. W., & Kang, J. (2009). Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents. Scientometrics, 81(3), 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Park, G., & Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7), 793–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roco, M. (2005). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American society for information science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Small, H., & Griffith, B. (1974). The structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science studies, 4, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stolpe, M. (2002). Determinants of knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data: the case of liquid crystal display technology* 1. Research Policy, 31(7), 1181–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sung, K., Kim, T., & Kong, H. (2010). Microscopic approach to evaluating technological convergence using patent citation analysis. U-and E-Service, Science and Technology (pp. 188–194).Google Scholar
  27. Von Luxburg, U. (2007). A tutorial on spectral clustering. Statistics and Computing, 17(4), 395–416.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yoon, J., & Kim, K. (2011). Identifying rapidly evolving technological trends for R&D planning using SAO-based semantic patent networks. Scientometrics, 88(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Science Studies and S&T Management and WISE Lab, Dalian University of TechnologyDalianPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations