{"title":"知识共和国的社交网络","authors":"D. Miert","doi":"10.1086/721316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"he past five or six years have witnessed the publication of numerous historical studies that draw on the method of network analysis. This essay seeks to explain why two books that emphatically reference “networking” in relation to a political entity (“empires” or “republic”) of learning do not use the quantitative and digital methods that have been drawing attention of historians of knowledge of late. Although quantitative network research has been around since the 1970s, the idea of a network in historical analysis received a new impulse due to the rise of the internet:","PeriodicalId":36904,"journal":{"name":"History of Humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Networking in the Republic of Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"D. Miert\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/721316\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"he past five or six years have witnessed the publication of numerous historical studies that draw on the method of network analysis. This essay seeks to explain why two books that emphatically reference “networking” in relation to a political entity (“empires” or “republic”) of learning do not use the quantitative and digital methods that have been drawing attention of historians of knowledge of late. Although quantitative network research has been around since the 1970s, the idea of a network in historical analysis received a new impulse due to the rise of the internet:\",\"PeriodicalId\":36904,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Humanities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/721316\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
he past five or six years have witnessed the publication of numerous historical studies that draw on the method of network analysis. This essay seeks to explain why two books that emphatically reference “networking” in relation to a political entity (“empires” or “republic”) of learning do not use the quantitative and digital methods that have been drawing attention of historians of knowledge of late. Although quantitative network research has been around since the 1970s, the idea of a network in historical analysis received a new impulse due to the rise of the internet:
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
