پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 161 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,533 |
| تعداد مقالات | 70,506 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,125,657 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,233,945 |
ترسیم نقشه علمِ سیاست‌گذاری رسانه‌ای بر اساس داده‌های پایگاه علوم از سال 2000 تا 2019 | ||
| بررسی‌های مدیریت رسانه | ||
| دوره 1، شماره 1، 1401، صفحه 53-77 اصل مقاله (1.45 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/mmr.2022.87743 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سمیه لبافی* 1؛ علیرضا رضوانیان2؛ کورش کمره ای3؛ داوود محمدی4 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه پژوهشی مطالعات اجتماعی اطلاعات، پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک)، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استادیار، گروه مهندسی کامپیوتر، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3کارشناس ارشد، گروه بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 4کارشناس ارشد، گروه مدیریت رسانه، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: مطالعات علم‌سنجی از مهجورشدن دانش کاربردی، رشد نامتوازن حوزههای علم و تولید پژوهشهای تکراری جلوگیری می‌کند. سیاست‌گذاری رسانه‌ای یکی از حوزههای موضوعی رشته مدیریت رسانه است. آگاهی از پژوهشهای انجام شده در این حوزه، قدرت پیش‌بینی آینده این پژوهش‌ها و چگونگی تأثیرگذاری آن بر سیاست‌گذاری‌های صنعت رسانه را تسهیل می‌کند. از این رو، هدف مطالعه حاضر ترسیم نقشه علم بر اساسِ مقاله‌های منتشر شده در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری رسانه‌ای بوده است. روش: پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از فنون تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی و تحلیل خوشه انجام شده است. گردآوری داده‌ها به‌صورت جست‌و‌جوی موضوعی در عنوان مقاله‌ها با 5 کلیدواژه مرتبط با سیاست‌گذاری رسانه، یعنی آزادی بیان، کپی‌رایت، حریم خصوصی، محافظت از داده‌ها و بی‌طرفی شبکه، انجام شد. جامعه پژوهش، تمام مقاله‌هایی است که در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری رسانه‌ای نگاشته شده و بین سال‌های 2000 تا 2019 در پایگاه علوم (Web of Science) نمایه شده است که بارگیری و ذخیره رکوردهای یادشده، در مجموع 900 مقاله انجامید. برای پاسخ به سؤال‌های پژوهش، از تکنیک خوشه‌بندی و مصورسازی و همچنین نسخه 1.6.13 نرم‌افزار Vos Viewer استفاده شد. یافته‌ها: بیشترین تعداد مقاله‌های مرتبط با سیاست‌گذاری رسانه در سال 2018 با 112 مقاله منتشر شده و بیشترین میزان استناد در سال 2017 با 630 استناد بوده است. تعداد کل نویسندگان در این شبکه استنادی 1873 نفر است که از این تعداد، 119 نویسنده در قالب گره، در نقشه هم‌تألیفی سیاست‌گذاری رسانه‌ای حضور دارند. در این پژوهش سیر تکامل شبکه هم‌رخدادی کلمات کلیدی و شبکه همکاری نویسندگان در سال‌های 2000 تا 2019 در چهار دوره زمانی برای پایان سال 2004، 2009، 2014 و 2019 ترسیم شده است. همچنین شبکه همکاری نویسندگان مابین دانشگاه‌های کشورهای مختلف همراه با انطباق بر نقشه جهانی و پراکندگی جغرافیایی نیز مشخص شد. نتیجه‌گیری: بررسی نقشه‌های علم، ضرورت توجه به موضوعات و روندهای رو به رشد در هر حوزه علمی را نمایان می‌سازد. نقشه علم ارائه شده در این پژوهش نیز توجه به موضوع حریم خصوصی در پژوهشهای این حوزه را نشان می‌دهد که با روند رو به رشد درخواست کاربران پلتفرم‌های رسانه‌های اجتماعی در این رابطه هم‌گراست. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| سیاست‌گذاری رسانه؛ نقشه علم؛ تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی؛ شبکه هم‌تألیفی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Bibliometric Mapping of Media Policy per Data from Web of Science (2000-2019) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Somayeh Labafi1؛ Alireza Rezvanian2؛ Kourosh Kamarei3؛ Davood Mohammadi4 | ||
| 1Assistant Prof., Department of Media Management, Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc), Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Prof., Department of Computer Engineering, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3MSc., Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 4MSc., Department of Media Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective Bibliometric studies prevent the abandonment of knowledge, the unbalanced growth of science fields, and the production of duplicate research. Media policy is one of the important fields of media management. Media policy is concerned with the media industry regulating activities to protect and develop the interests of stakeholders, and to control the power in this industry (Labafi & Williams, 2019). Media policy determines and affects how media industries develop (Doyle, 2013). Media policy is a product of national political, cultural, and social ideologies (Ots and Krumsvik, 2016; Freedman, 2008; Freedman, 2018; Labafi et al., 2020). It helps to achieve specific goals of the governing system (Hutchison, 1999), retain and attract stakeholders, and control power in the industry (Labafi et al., 2019). Some scholars accept the state intervention at a minimum level (Evans, 2016) and suppose that various players such as states, civil institutions, and users should take part in policy-making (Puppis, 2010). However, it depends on a specific context. Regarding either national or international legislation systems, previous studies (Van Cuilenburg and McQuail, 2003; Lund, 2004; Freedman, 2011) indicate that media policy requires a series of socially accepted principles. Up until now, the studies in the field of media policy followed a variety of approaches, and the diversity of its studies in each period was proportionate to the media industry regulation needs (Van Den Bulck et al., 2019). Awareness of the studies on this field facilitates predicting the future of these studies and their influence on policy-making in the media industry. No research has been carried out neither on the status of scientific products of media policy nor on the growth pattern of these products based on the indices of network and cluster analysis. Bibliometric studies can provide an effective tool to prevent the marginalization of applied knowledge, unbalanced growth of some fields of science, and conduction of duplicate studies. This paper reviewed and analyzed the studies conducted in this field using network and cluster analysis. It is seeking to draw a Bibliometric map following the papers published in the field of media policy. Research Methodology This research was carried out using network analysis techniques, as well as cluster analysis. The data collection entails the search of paper titles comprising five keywords related to media policy (freedom of speech, copyright, privacy, data protection, and net neutrality). The research population included all papers on the Web of Science in the field of media policy from 2000 to 2019. The aforesaid records were downloaded and stored (a total of 900 were stored and processed). The clustering and visualization techniques were used by Vos Viewer, 1.6.13 to respond to the research questions. Findings The findings suggested that the majority of the papers were carried out in 2018, i.e., 112 papers, and the highest number of citations amounted to 630 in 2017. A total number of 1873 authors were studied in this citation network, which included 119 authors as nodes in the co-authorship network map of media policy. In this research, the evolution of keywords’ co-occurrence and authors’ collaboration networks were drawn from 2000 to 2019 in the four-time intervals of the end of 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019. The most repeated concepts in the papers were social media, media policymaking, privacy, information security, regulation, politics, Facebook, etc. The most repeated and co-occurred concepts were classified into 5 clusters. The most important cluster consisted of concepts related to social medial regulation; in this cluster, concepts such as Web-2, information privacy, Twitter, Facebook, security, copyright, impact, new media, data protection, trust, and policy co-occurred more than 4 times. In addition, the authors’ collaboration network among the universities of different countries was specified together with adjustments on the world map and geographical dispersion. The co-authorship map of media policymaking includes 119 nodes. Considering the novelty and interdisciplinary nature of this field, there is no large network of cooperation, and authors are usually willing to write and publish their works individually or less cooperate with those in this network. Figures such as Philip Napoli, Des Freedman, and Petros Iosifidis have published several works individually without cooperation or through minimum cooperation with those in this network. The largest co-authorship network in this map consists of 12 authors, such as Paola Mancini, Carlo, and Bellini. Discussion & Conclusion The Bibliometric maps demonstrated the necessity of considering the growing themes and trends in a scientific field. The Bibliometric mapping of Media Policy proposed in this research indicated the emphasis on privacy in the studies in this field, which is convergent with the requests of the social media users in this regard. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of keywords suggested that researchers are more inclined to work on the big data and media platforms at their disposal and seek to conceptualize the ownership of these data using various approaches. The media industry policymakers are recommended to seriously consider the most repeated concepts of papers because these abstract concepts will turn into real needs of the industry and users in the future. Events such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal well indicated that the media industry needs to come up with new policies to deal with changes. The public discourse now demands the regulation of media platforms; the demands in this regard cover a wide range from the necessity of monitoring media platforms to the need for media platforms to be accountable for user-generated content. The diversity and multiplicity of studies on media policymaking can help policymakers to develop and implement better policies. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Media policy, Bibliometric mapping, Social network analysis, Co-authorship network | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
خاصه، علی اکبر؛ سوسرایی، مسعود و فخار، مهدی (1395). تحلیل خوشه‌های موضوعی و ترسیم نقشه‌های علمی پژوهشگران ایرانی حوزه انگل شناسی با تأکید بر شاخص‌های هم تألیفی و شاخص اچ. مجله میکروب‌شناسی پزشکی ایران، ۱۰(۲)، 63- 74.
رضوانی، سید حسین (1395). حق آزادی بیان و مسئولیت بین‌المللی کشورها در قبال آن. فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، 30(4)، 65- 92.
لبافی، سمیه (1398). شناسایی حوزههای موضوعی پژوهشهای سیاست‌گذاری رادیو ـ تلویزیون؛ رویکرد فراترکیب. فصلنامه پژوهشهای ارتباطی، 26(4)، 27-60.
References Ambrose, M. L. & Ausloos, J. (2013). The right to be forgotten across the pond. Journal of Information Policy, 3, 1–23. Audibert, L. C. & Murray, A. D. (2016). A principled approach to network neutrality. Scripted, 13 (2), 118-143. Bennett, J. (2011). Introduction. In Television as Digital Media. By J. Bennett and N. Strange (Eds.). Durham: Duke University Press. Blevins, J. & Shade, L. (2010). International perspectives on network neutrality. Global Media Journal, 3 (1), 1-8. Boshera, H. & Yeşiloğlu, S. (2018). An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33, 164-186. Bourreau, M. & Lestage, R. (2019). Net neutrality and asymmetric platform competition. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 55(2), 140-171. Charalampopoulos, G., Katsianis, D. & Varoutas, D. (2020). Investigating the intertwining impact of wholesale access pricing and the commitment to net neutrality principle on European next-generation access networks private investment plans: An options-game application for capturing market players'' competitive interactions. Telecommunications Policy, 44(3), 101- 130. Choi, J. P., Jeon, D. S. & Kim, B. C. (2018). Net neutrality, network capacity, and innovation at the edges. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 66(1), 172-204. Elkin-Koren, N. (2014). After twenty years: Revisiting copyright liability of online intermediaries. In The evolution and equilibrium of copyright in the digital age. By S. Frankel and D. Gervais (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evans, D.S. & Gawer, A. (2016). The rise of the platform enterprise: A global survey. The Emerging Platform Economy Series, 1(2), 1- 12. Freedman, D. (2008). The politics of media policy, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press Freedman, D. (2018). Populism and media policy failure. European Journal of Communication, 13(3), 1-15. Glass, V. & Tardiff, T. (2019). A new direction for the net neutrality debate. Telecommunications Policy, 43(3), 199- 212. Glass, V. & Tardiff, T. (2019). The Federal Communications Commission''s rural infrastructure auction: What is hidden in the weeds? Telecommunications Policy, 43(8), 1-10. Hemerijck, A. C. (2002). Media Policy for the Digital Age. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Hutchison, D. (1999). Media policy. UK: Blackwell press. Jayakar, K. (2018). Media policy. In “Handbook of Media Management and Economics”. By Albarran, A., Mierzejewska, B. & Jung, J. UK: Routledge publication. Khase, A. A., Sosarae, M. & Fakhar, M. (2016). Cluster analysis and mapping of Iranian researchers in the field of parasitology: With an emphasis on the co-authoreship indicators and H Index. Iran J Med Microbiol, 10 (2), 63-74. (in Persian) Klimkiewicz, B. (2010). Media freedom and pluralism: Media policy challenges in the enlarged Europe. Media freedom and pluralism. Budapest: Central European University Press. Labafi, S. & Williams I. (2019. Jun). Open data policies in social media industry, a model for convergence of views. Oral Presented in European Media Management Association (EMMA) Conference 2019, Limassol, Cyprus. Labafi, S. (2020). Identify the thematic areas of radio-television policy research. Quarterly Journal of Communication Research, 26 (4), 27-60. (in Persian) Labafi, S. (2020). Iranian data protection policy in social media; An actor-network theory approaches. Chapter book in “contemporary application of the actor network theory”, Palgrave McMillan. Laengle, S. & Merigó, J. (2017). Forty years of the European journal of operational research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 803–816. Landes, W. & Posner, R. (1989). An economic analysis of copyright law. Journal of Legal Studies, 8, 325-363. Lessig, L. (2016). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. London: Bloomsbury. Lilley, A. (2006). Inside the creative industries: Copyright on the ground. London: Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Lomborg, S. & Helles, R. (2013). Privacy in practice: The regulation of personal data in Denmark and its implications for new media innovation. In Media Innovation; A Multidisciplinary Study of Change By T. Storsul and A.H. Krumsvik (Eds.)(pp. 145-160). Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. McDiarmid, A. & Shears, M. (2016). The importance of internet neutrality to protecting human rights online. In “Net Neutrality Compendium” By Luca Belli, Primavera De Filippi, Springer International Publishing. McGloin, J. M. & Kirk, D. S. (2014). An overview of social network analysis. In Advancing Quantitative Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 75-87). UK: Routledge. McKinsey (2011). Are you ready for the era of ‘big data? McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/are-you-ready-for-the-era-of-big-data Accessed 25 May 2019. Olson, K. K. (2016). The first amendment in theory and practice. In Communication and the law By W. Wat Hopkins (Ed.) (pp. 23–36). Northport, AL: Vision Press. Ots, M. & Krumsvik, A. (2016). Media policy’s new challenges. Journal of Media Business Studies, 13(3), 125-127. Parker, G.G. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy - and how to make them work for you. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Perscheid, G., Ostern, N. K. & Moormann, J. (2020). Determining platform governance: framework for classifying governance types. In ICIS. Puddington, A. (2015). Freedom in the world 2014: Annual survey of political rights and civil liberties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Puppis, M. (2010). Media governance: A new concept for the analysis of media policy and regulation. Communication, culture and critique, 3 (2), 34-149. Reini, P. (2019). GDPR implementation Case: Head power oy [University of Transport and Communications].https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/166514/Reini_k7696_thesis_versio4.1.pdf?sequence=2 Rezvani, S. H. (2017). The right to freedom of expression and the international responsibility of states. Foreign Policy Quarterly, 30 (4), 65-92. (in Persian) Smith, R.C. & Tambini, D. (2012). Measuring media plurality in the United Kingdom: Policy choices and regulatory challenges. Journal of Media Law, 4(2), 35-63. Suzor, N. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms. Social Media + Society, 8(3), 78- 94. Valtysson, B. (2011). The digital public sphere: challenges for media policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(2), 255-257. Van cuilenburg, J. & McQuail, D. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communications policy paradigm. European Journal of Communication, 18(2), 181-207. Van den Bulck, H., Puppis, M., Donders, K. & Van Audenhove, L. (2019). The palgrave handbook of methods for media policy research, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland. Van Eck, N.J. (2018). Methodological advances in bibliometric mapping of science 2011. Accessed on June 2018: https://repub. eur.nl/pub/26509/ Vošner, H.B., Kokol, P., Bobek, S., Železnik, D. & Završnik, J. (2018). A bibliometric retrospective of the journal computers in human behavior (1991–2015). Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 46-58. Withers, K. (2006). Intellectual property and the knowledge economy. London: Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Zancanaro, A., Todesco, J.L. & Ramos, F. (2015). A bibliometric mapping of open educational resources. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 56-73. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 300 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 341 |
||