|
|
|
| Evaluation Significance of Patents Cited by Humanities and Social Sciences Papers from the Perspective of Philosophy of Technology |
| Li Rui1,2, Gou Yang1, Zhuang Zhibo3 |
1.Sichuan University-The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Institute for Disaster Management and Reconstruction, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610207
2.Chengdu Vocational & Technical College of Industry, Chengdu 610213
3.Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington 47408 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The international authoritative patent intelligence firm, CHI, incorporated the “citations” between patents and scientific papers into the patent measurement indicator system that has been widely used for over two decades. However, the phenomenon of patents being cited by humanities and social sciences papers has rarely been studied. This paper is based on two opposing theories within the philosophy of technology: the technological critique theory of the traditional pessimistic humanistic faction and the actor-network theory of the modern social construction faction and proposes two contrary hypotheses. The first hypothesis assumes that the attitude of the humanities and social sciences toward technological inventions is one of concern and critique, thus hypothesizing that the vitality of patents is negatively correlated with the frequency of their citation (critique) by humanities and social sciences papers. The second hypothesis assumes that the relationship between the humanities and technological inventions is one of dialogue, negotiation, and mutual construction, thus hypothesizing that the vitality of patents is positively correlated with the number of humanities disciplines citing them (dimensions of dialogue and negotiation) and with the betweenness centrality in the two-mode network (importance in social construction). Through an empirical study of global patents cited by A&HCI and SSCI journal papers, the first hypothesis is refuted, and the second hypothesis is validated, indicating that the current attitude of the humanities and social sciences toward technological inventions is not one of concern and critique but rather one of dialogue and negotiation. Furthermore, the richer the dimensions of negotiation and mutual construction, the stronger the vitality of the patents. Additionally, the more important the position of technological inventions in the social relational structure, the greater their vitality. The patent intelligence community is suggested to pay attention to the phenomenon of patents being cited in humanities and social sciences papers. By measuring the “disciplinary richness” of the citing side and analyzing the structural characteristics of the two-mode citation network, the more comprehensive evaluation and foresight of patent vitality can be provided.
|
|
Received: 21 October 2024
|
|
|
|
1 CHI Research. Patent technology indicators[EB/OL]. [2000-12-03]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download doi=10.1.1.23.4124&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
2 Hinze S, Schmoch U. Opening the black box[M]// Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004: 215-235.
3 Halevi G, Moed H F. The technological impact of library science research: a patent analysis[C]// Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer, 2012: 371-380.
4 Cao H C, Lu Y J, Deng Y T, et al. Breaking out of the Ivory tower: a large-scale analysis of patent citations to HCI research[C]// Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2023: Article No.760.
5 Xu S, Ma X Y, Wang H, et al. A recommendation approach of scientific non-patent literature on the basis of heterogeneous information network[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2024, 18(4): 101557.
6 Ascione G S, Ciucci L, Detotto C, et al. University patent litigation in the United States: do we have a problem?[J]. Research Policy, 2024, 53(2): 104909.
7 Poege F, Harhoff D, Gaessler F, et al. Science quality and the value of inventions[J]. Science Advances, 2019, 5(12): eaay7323.
8 van Raan Anthony F J. Patent citations analysis and its value in research evaluation: a review and a new approach to map technology-relevant research[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(1): 13-50.
9 Mariani M S, Medo M, Lafond F. Early identification of important patents: design and validation of citation network metrics[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2019, 146: 644-654.
10 Velayos-Ortega G, López-Carre?o R. Indicators for measuring the impact of scientific citations in patents[J]. World Patent Information, 2023, 72: 102171.
11 de Moya-Anegon F, Lopez-Illescas C, Guerrero-Bote V, et al. The citation impact of social sciences and humanities upon patentable technology[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(2): 1665-1687.
12 卢梭. 论科学与艺术的复兴是否有助于使风俗日趋纯朴[M]. 李平沤, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2016: 23-33.
13 马丁·海德格尔. 存在的天命: 海德格尔技术哲学文选[M]. 孙周兴, 编译. 杭州: 中国美术学院出版社, 2018: 45-58.
14 赫伯特·马尔库塞. 单向度的人: 发达工业社会意识形态研究[M]. 刘继, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2014: 3-17.
15 Ellul J. The technological society[M]. Wilkinson J, translated. New York: Vintage Books, 1964: 133-149.
16 京特·安德斯. 过时的人(第一卷): 论第二次工业革命时期人的灵魂[M]. 范捷平, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2010: 228-243.
17 兰登·温纳. 自主性技术: 作为政治思想主题的失控技术[M]. 杨海燕, 译. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2014.
18 赵建军. 技术悲观主义思潮的当代解读[J]. 中共中央党校学报, 2004, 8(3): 117-122.
19 C.P.斯诺. 两种文化[M]. 纪树立, 译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 1994: 115-128.
20 Bijker W E, Hughes T P, Pinch T. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1987: xiv.
21 Kroes P, Meijers A. The empirical turn in the philosophy of technology[M]. London: JAI Press, 2000.
22 卡尔·米切姆. 技术哲学概论[M]. 殷登祥, 曹南燕, 等译. 天津: 天津科学技术出版社, 1999: 3.
23 顾世春. 从海德格尔到鲍尔格曼技术哲学经验转向研究[M]. 大连: 东北财经大学出版社, 2024: 18-29.
24 郑晓松. 社会塑形技术的三种路径[J]. 哲学分析, 2017, 8(5): 145-156, 199.
25 成素梅. 拉图尔的科学哲学观——在巴黎对拉图尔的专访[J]. 哲学动态, 2006(9): 3-8.
26 埃·弗洛姆. 为自己的人[M]. 孙依依, 译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 1988: 15-27.
27 刘易斯·芒福德. 生活的准则[M]. 朱明, 译. 上海: 上海三联书店, 2016.
28 巴札尔, 安凡丹, 罗德里格. 圣西门学说释义[M]. 王永江, 黄鸿森, 李昭时, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2011.
29 贺建芹. 拉图尔眼中的科学行动者[M]. 济南: 山东大学出版社, 2014. |
|
|
|
