A research infrastructure for the social sciences & humanities

@article{Omena2020,

title = {Digital Methods for Hashtag Engagement Research},

author = {Janna Joceli Omena and Elaine Teixeira Rabello and André Goes Mintz},

url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120940697},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120940697},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-09-03},

urldate = {2020-09-03},

journal = {Social Media + Society},

volume = {6},

number = {3},

pages = {2056305120940697},

abstract = {This article seeks to contribute to the field of digital research by critically accounting for the relationship between hashtags and their forms of grammatization—the platform techno-materialization process of online activity. We approach hashtags as sociotechnical formations that serve social media research not only as criteria in corpus selection but also displaying the complexity of the online engagement and its entanglement with the technicity of web platforms. Therefore, the study of hashtag engagement requires a grasping of the functioning of the platform itself (technicity) along with the platform grammatization. In this respect, we propose the three-layered (3L) perspective for addressing hashtag engagement. The first contemplates potential differences between high-visibility and ordinary hashtag usage culture, its related actors, and content. The second focuses on hashtagging activity and the repurposing of how hashtags can be differently embedded into social media databases. The last layer looks particularly into the images and texts to which hashtags are brought to relation. To operationalize the 3L framework, we draw on the case of the “impeachment-cum-coup” of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff. When cross-read, the three layers add value to one another, providing also difference visions of the high-visibility and ordinary groups.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Kundu2020,

title = {Public procurement and innovation: a systematic literature review},

author = {Oishee Kundu and Andrew D James and John Rigby},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa029},

doi = {10.1093/scipol/scaa029},

issn = {0302-3427},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-09-01},

urldate = {2020-09-01},

journal = {Science and Public Policy},

volume = {47},

number = {4},

pages = {490-502},

abstract = {Public procurement and innovation is the subject of a growing body of literature. This article systematically reviews the existing research, documenting its evolution and highlighting dominant and overlooked themes. We find a dramatic increase in the number of journal publications on this topic since 2008, the existence of thematic communities within the literature, and a focus on empirical work. We analysed keywords and abstracts to identify the broad boundaries of research on public procurement and innovation as well as particular areas of focus in the literature. We found a variety of terms used to describe the application of public procurement as an innovation policy tool and a variety of thematic interests and theoretical foundations. We argue that this makes it challenging to consolidate the research on the topic. From a policy perspective, the geographical context of research is overwhelmingly concentrated in OECD and EU countries.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Deng2020,

title = {Exploring the topic structure and evolution of associations in information behavior research through co-word analysis},

author = {Shengli Deng and Sudi Xia and Jiming Hu and Hongxiu Li and Yong Liu },

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620938120},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

urldate = {2020-07-01},

journal = {Journal of Librarianship and Information Science},

abstract = {This study aims to reveal the distribution of topics, and the associations among them, in information behavior research from 2009 to 2018. Working with a collection of 6744 publications from the Web of Science database, co-word analysis is used to investigate the overall topic structure, the associations among the topics, and their evolution in different years, which is supplemented by visualization with science maps. The results uncovered an unbalanced distribution of topics, and that the topics cluster into six communities representing subdivisions of this field: information behavior in patient-centered studies; information interaction in the digital environment; information literacy in health and academic contexts; health literacy on the Internet; information behavior in child-centered studies; and information behavior in medical informatics. The findings supplement and provide refinements to work on the state of this field, and help researchers obtain an overview of the past decade to guide their future work.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Rikap2020,

title = {Amazon: A story of accumulation through intellectual rentiership and predation },

author = {Cecilia Rikap},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529420932418},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-06-17},

journal = {Competition & Change},

abstract = {This article elaborates on intellectual monopoly theory as a form of predation and rentiership using Amazon as a case study. By analysing Amazon’s financial statements, scientific publications and patents, we show that Amazon’s economic power heavily relies on its systematic innovations and capacity to centralize and analyse customized data that orients its business and innovations. We demonstrate how Amazon’s innovation activities have evolved over time with growing importance of technologies related to data and machine learning. We also map Amazon’s innovation networks with academic institutions and companies. We show how Amazon appropriates intellectual rents from these networks and from technological cooperation with other intellectual monopolies. We argue that Amazon, as other data-driven monopolies, predates value from suppliers and third-party companies participating in its platform. One striking characteristic of Amazon is the low rate of reported profits. The centrality of innovations leads us to suggest an alternative calculation that shows that Amazon’s profits are not as low as they appear in Annual Reports. We also argue that lower profits are coherent with Amazon’s rentiership and predatory strategy since they contribute to the avoidance of accusations of excessive market power. Finally, the paper offers preliminary observations on: (i) the complementarities between financial and intellectual rentierism and (ii) how data-driven intellectual monopoly expands big corporations’ political power. Going beyond the specific case of Amazon, we thus contribute to a better understanding of the role of lead firms and power dynamics within innovation networks.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}