A Mixed-Method Approach for Domain Analysis in Interdisciplinary Fields Using Bibliometrics: The Case of Global Studies

Abstract

This study answers how bibliometrics and the analysis of terminology in selected theoretical books and reference sources can allow domain analysis in interdisciplinary fields of knowledge, taking as a case study the global studies (GS) field. A mixed-methods approach was applied to answer this. First, an analysis of GS’s lexicon from three sources: (1) The Encyclopedia of Global Studies (2012), (2) The Global Studies Encyclopedic Dictionary (2014), and (3) The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (2009). Second, the analysis of GS topic tendencies using bibliometrics. The results show (1) the validity of the methods used for domain analysis under the lenses of library and information science (LIS) and (2) the importance of a manual selection of sources for domain analysis and the correspondence between the methods and the application of results using integrative level classification (ILC). The author concludes that domain analysis for emergent interdisciplinary fields of knowledge benefit from quantitative approaches based on a methodology that considers terminology in various formats and can be applied not just for the global studies field. Finally, we emphasize the need for collaboration between librarians and scholars for a better understanding of the dynamics of interdisciplinary vocabularies in science.

1. Introduction

Domain analysis under the library and information science (LIS) perspective is an important topic within the field, and valuable discussions have been carried out among prominent scholars within the last decades. Such discussions have enriched our understanding of domain analysis by critically highlighting the theoretical and methodological gaps that academics encounter when approaching the concepts of domain analysis and domain. Such discussions were very helpful to approach the GS field, considering some perspectives that are not opposite but complementary by taking certain perspectives and challenging them. For example, Hanne Albrechtsen and Birger Hjørland mention the LIS paradigm relies on the study of knowledge domains as “thoughts or discourse communities” [1] (p. 400), being the domain the group or community of authors of the field’s theories, arguments, discussions, etc. [2]. In a similar way, Richard Smiraglia talks about the domain as a “group with a common knowledge base that engages in discourse” [3] (p. 5). This sociological view influenced the process of the selection of two groups of sources: (1) The most recently published books in the GS field and (2) reference sources in which the GS community shared their understanding of the field’s grounding terminology.

On the other hand, Joseph Tennis’s contribution to the operationalization procedures for a domain analyst [4] helped this study to understand what could represent the GS domain by considering the so-called “Areas of Modulation” and “Degrees of Specialization”. For the identification of the domain extension of GS (the total scope of its areas of modulation), it was essential to establish criteria for selecting journal titles. For the identification of what is intended in GS research, it was important to know which other domains contributed to the GS field, as is shown in Section 3.1., addressing also the discussions about the problem of defining a domain in Section 1.1.

Regarding the use of the methods, authors focused on theorizing domain analysis agree on the important contributions of bibliometrics for domain analysis [5,6]. Hjørland [2] includes bibliometrics as a suitable method along with ten other approaches for domain analysis, mentioning how a comprehensive analysis must include more than one of those. However, it is still unclear how and with which other methodologies/approaches bibliometrics can cooperate for a suitable domain analysis, especially for interdisciplinary fields of knowledge. The present study employs a mixed-methods approach for domain analysis, utilizing bibliometrics as a case study in the emergent interdisciplinary field of global studies (GS). Global studies is defined as a field of knowledge that tries to understand the dynamics of current flows and entanglements taking place in the world by exploring the various features of globalization and other transnational, transregional phenomena [7,8]. This broad perspective allows the interaction of scholars from the social sciences and humanities and other disciplines interested in currently trending topics such as environmental issues or climate change [9].

It is shown in this study how the selected methods not frequently applied together for domain analysis can contribute to knowledge organization (KO), even if domain analysis relies on “careful analysis of texts” [10] (p. 133). Inspired by the definition given by the International Society of Knowledge Organization (ISKO), KO is the art of interpreting the content of documents and other document representations, which helps to describe and group such content based on its similar properties. Examples provided by ISKO are classification systems, subject headings, thesauruses, etc. [11].

This study answers the following question: How can bibliometrics and the analysis of terminology in selected theoretical books and reference sources allow domain analysis in interdisciplinary fields of knowledge and, more precisely, in the global studies field? This question focuses first on the “how”: how the methods allow domain analysis. Therefore, a detailed explanation of them constitutes one essential part of this study. The second aspect focuses on where such methods will be applied and for which purposes. Therefore, introductory sections position the reader under the perspective this study is conducted: under the lenses of LIS. Clarification provides the concept of domain analysis, the disciplinary context the author departs from. Finally, the question introduces the object of study: the GS field. One of its main characteristics is its interdisciplinary nature. This final aspect evidences the challenging task of grasping the contours and main topics of interest in such a field.

To gain an understanding of the field, both methods focus on how GS theorists and academics, or in other words, the discourse community, describe what the field is about. The first method analyses the thematic categories and types of entries present in one encyclopedia and two dictionaries whose content is coherent with the description and definitional aspects of GS provided for such community in recent theoretical books, answering the following: What is GS? What are its predecessor fields or co-fields? What are its main characteristics? What is GS about? (The methods section has the full list of books).

The second method complements the first by considering not only scholars’ theoretical views about the field but also its knowledge production. In this case, 183 journals were selected based on their content and analyzed using bibliometric tools.

The research design employs a mixed-methods approach to (a) gain an understanding of the field by examining the influences of others, how scholars define it, and its primary research interests. In this case, eleven theoretical books were analyzed, and (b) we identify the terminology used by the knowledge community of the domain in three reference sources and 184 title journals. The analysis in reference sources included the manual categorization of concepts and a comparison between the lexicons found in those. At the same time, the bibliometric method helped to visualize topic trends in journal articles using two bibliometric software tools: VOSviewer 1.6.18 and CiteSpace (Basic, free version).

Taking the previous description in mind, the present study contributes to the following:

−

Enhance domain analysis knowledge by empirically applying a mixed-method approach to GS, an interdisciplinary field of knowledge.

−

Nourish the current state-of-the-art, which is characterized by studies in which bibliometrics is generally used as the single analysis method, generally not for KO. Many studies involving bibliometrics, under the label of “domain analysis”, are analyses of a field that considers only bibliometric metrics, which serve purposes different from those of KO.

−

Provide GS scholars and information centers with additional terminology corresponding to non-controlled vocabularies. Currently, controlled vocabularies cannot be updated at the same pace as knowledge production, a problem faced by current thesauruses on GS and related fields.

−

The understanding of an emergent field not yet recognized in current classifications in libraries, bibliographical databases, or supranational organizations, e.g., OCDE or UNESCO.

It is important to note that this study devotes particular attention to the methodologies employed for analyzing the GS domain. Therefore, the results reported are consistent with the methodological description, and the discussion addresses the proposed research questions in a similar manner. Please see my previous publication [12] for a comprehensive account of the bibliometric analysis conducted in GS title journals, utilizing data from the citation databases Scopus, WoS, and Dimensions, as well as the webpages of non-indexed journals.

1.1. Domain Analysis and Bibliometrics

It is not a surprise that bibliometrics studies are considered a predecessor of domain studies [1]. Indeed, the potential that De Solla Price [13] and some early modern sociologists and librarians of science, such as Robert K. Merton [14], Barry Barnes [15], or Alan Pritchard [16], saw in the “science of science” or “big science” was the possibility to measure science performance through, for example, citation measures [17]. Relations between clusters show the dynamics of disciplines in a complex and undecipherable system, with research production as the amount of published output [18] (p. 53). Methodologies used to visualize research production or the knowledge production of a domain under library and information Sscience (LIS) lenses have improved over time due to the technological advances in software development and have their roots in scientometrics, bibliometrics, and citation analysis [19]. It was Garfield who introduced the idea of domain visualization under the term “Scientography” [20]. Domain analysis benefits from domain visualization techniques as they give an insight into the unknown dynamics of science, the visualization of scientific paradigms, and the development of scientific knowledge [21] (p. 158).

In this study, bibliometrics is used for domain visualization based on co-occurrence term maps. Domain visualization also includes data from authors, institutions, and citations. However, I focus here on visualizing terms and keyword maps derived from large datasets obtained from citation databases.

First, it is worth mentioning that the following discussions and term’s conceptualizations consider the LIS perspective. This fact is quite important as there is a strong branch of domain analysis in the software engineering field, specifically computer modeling of domains. However, seminal works in domain analysis focus on the information retrieval process from the LIS approach, which involves understanding a domain to provide accurate data that facilitate retrieval based on classification systems, cataloguing, and description, among other methods.

The domain analysis view in LIS is an example of a socio-cognitive paradigm that prioritizes the study of knowledge domains through discourse community [22]. This view involves social theories that are interested in the needs of the individual but consider the type of discipline first. Authors supporting this view also argue that the point of departure of LIS is “knowledge domains, disciplines, or trades… not individuals. The individuals must be seen as members of working groups. LIS should, in other words, be seen as a social science rather as a cognitive science” [1] (p. 409).

The opposite and most common view in LIS is the individualistic one. This view responds to cognitive and behavioral paradigms, giving greater prominence to individual personal knowledge, behaviors, and information needs, among others. This research recognizes the importance of individuals in LIS studies. However, it aligns with more socially oriented approaches that focus on the knowledge field or subject area produced, rather than individual patterns. By understanding GS through its terminology, as defined in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and academic journals, this research focuses on knowledge production in science and responds to the LIS socio-cognitive paradigm, as represented through domain studies.

However, to mention the contributions that bibliometric studies give to domain analysis, it is necessary to understand the concept of domain. Since Hjørland and Albrechtsen [5] explicitly opened the discussion of domain analysis in LIS, authors replied by addressing the “problem” of defining it. Hjørland, for example, denied the claim that domain analysts should construct “the definitions of their domain that are transferable to other researchers, to members of domains, and all parties interested in domain analysis” [4] (p. 194).

The authors replied to Tennis’s claims, stating that if a general definition of a domain is given, this definition would be attached to one view or paradigm. In contrast, they proposed not defining the domain but encouraging researchers to “begin with a high-level interpretive study of a subject or community of interest. An early requirement is to uncover the interests underlying different conceptions of that area and then negotiate for an ideal definition of the domain” [23] (p. 242).

The different perspectives authors introduce to the concept of the domain are useful to this study, not just in the process of designing the methodology and the criteria for selecting sources, as mentioned, but also in considering what the results should address and how. Based on the revised literature, one perspective focuses on non-human objects in a general sense, such as information systems, resources, and services, from the perspective of a “group of users with common concerns” [24] (p. 93). Others consider the purpose of a domain and concentrate more on the actors than on the objects. This is the case of the proposals that state that its main goal is “the construction of a KOS, in which the domain is the group itself with “an ontological base that reveals an underlying teleology, a set of common hypotheses, epistemological consensus on methodological approaches, and social semantics” (Ontology is a concept that originally belonged to the field of philosophy. Ontology is the study of being that tries to answer, “What is it?”. That is, what is the essence, in this case of a domain. Since computers offer the possibility to analyse different knowledge structures, computer science and LIS borrowed the term.) [25] (p. 114). Therefore, in this study, it was relevant to examine how the selected terms could be utilized to enhance the terminology of a KOS.

The previous author understands domain analysis as the process that helps develop structures to organize the knowledge produced by the group, e.g., classification systems, subject schemes, thesauruses, etc. This definition aligns with one of this study’s contributions in providing complementary terms for description and access.

However, is it appropriate to use bibliometrics for domain analysis? Of course, this question is not new. Even Garfield, in 1979, asked himself if the science of science’s citation analysis was a legitimate evaluation tool for science. He mentioned that other evaluations and judgments from peers and the scientific community should complement bibliometric analyses [25].

Pioneers in bibliometrics studies were interested in understanding the big maps of science, trends, and networks that offer just one reality of the dynamics of science. Even if this research project does not make any value judgement about researchers’ productivity and impact, it does use citations, especially in composing the second sample of this study. The following arguments do not pretend to deny the limitations of bibliometric studies. Still, they seek to reveal the potential that a mixed-methods domain analysis has for unveiling the big picture of subject tendencies within a field, analyzing its knowledge production.

One could say that bibliometrics is just mere citation counting. Undoubtedly, bibliometrics bases its method using citations, and the results are visual maps of connections or networks among different variables. However, the act of citing a work is rarely an accidental or arbitrary event, for example, inserting the wrong work by mistake or without reading the chosen publication. The act of citing shows an interest, whatever the reason, that the author has in showing how this work helps to reaffirm, understand, justify, historicize, debate, or challenge the author’s ideas. In his seminal paper titled “Cited documents as concept symbols”, Small states the many functions and advantages of citing in which a repertoire or document symbols are the “tools-of-the-trade” that help frame the scientist’s ideas. A citation then becomes a symbol of an idea, and among other results of this act is the following:

The narrowing of meaning occurs by condensing or ’capsulizing’ a complex original text into a few standard statements, allowing scientists to more easily confirm, refute, or build upon the earlier work. This serves the needs of the specialty by enabling work to go on unencumbered by the necessity of unravelling the complete meaning and implications of the earlier text [26].

Citations then establish a specific kind of connection between works. Consider the number of “links” just one academic article has. If one wants to analyze a field through citations in a certain period, awareness of the amount of data must be a key factor in selecting the method. Bibliometrics can analyze large amounts of data using computer software developments for citation analysis. As some studies have shown, bibliometrics provides a way to visualize a field through its literature. Results indicate a “good agreement” between the expert’s general view of a field and what the visualization reveals. Therefore, in some cases, after seeing one type of visualization, the specialist might say something like, “I know all that already.” This is an achievement as it means that it is possible to represent some of the specialist’s views and give a kind of “visual corroboration” of one’s hypothesis [27].

Now, how do bibliometrics contribute to domain analysis studies? The possibility of visualizing a field through citations or co-word analysis enhances one domain’s perspective and enables the identification of other related fields that interact with it [5].

The bibliometric approach also enables interdisciplinary knowledge organization as it has been used to “establish the level of interdisciplinarity… and the subject composition of an interdiscipline” [11] (p. 134).

Furthermore, some techniques used by bibliometric representations group general tendencies that consider “factors that are external to the user’s subjective perception… facing the representation to a reality that was not previously perceived” [28] (p. 10). Furthermore, domains can be as broad as fields or as narrow as small subfields [6].

In this regard, the input (sample) can be as large or as narrow as one chooses. One can choose to visualize large clusters of networks or zoom in on the relations, perceiving them with greater detail. Therefore, those visualizations also bring the chance of finding small clusters of academics that work together, often known as invisible colleges:

“These are groups of scholars who work in specific theoretical paradigms. Often, only the tip of the iceberg of their work appears in print; much of what they do is invisible because they spend time together in meetings or conversing online, or even comparing notes over cocktails. However, domain-analytical techniques such as author cocitation analysis often can reveal the outlines of working invisible colleges” [3] (p. 12).

Although identifying small clusters among large numbers of them constitutes a time-consuming task, identifying relations among both broad and small clusters in some bibliometric studies is equally important. This research project, for example, looks at terms and keywords with high connections represented in a network (Co-citation analysis differs from direct citation as the former one makes pairs of documents that have something in common: they are cited by other documents) [29,30]. Following some introductory remarks on the contributions of bibliometrics to domain analysis, the next section will introduce initiatives for KO that utilize bibliometrics.

1.2. Bibliometrics, Domain Analysis and KO

There are a significant number of studies interested in domain analysis using bibliometrics. Their primary goal is to identify subject tendencies and the most prolific authors and institutions in each domain, based on co-citation and co-word analysis. Most of these studies do not foresee a future implementation of findings for KO or complement the research with other types of domain analysis. Using two or more methods is strongly advised for a comprehensive domain analysis. Few papers focus on conducting a bibliometrics analysis for KOS maintenance or development. At the end of the 20th century, interesting contributions used testing methods for KOS development, e.g., automatic and manual extraction of terms for thesaurus construction [31,32].

Due to technological advances and the availability of open-source software, such studies have increased over the last few decades. Therefore, the literature on bibliometrics and KO has expanded beyond theories and literature revisions. Although there are examples of thesaurus development, research on the construction of ontologies is more prevalent. Papers conducting tangible results include, for example, the study performed by Schneider and Borland [33], who, based on document co-citation analysis, selected “candidate thesaurus terms” in periodontology using also the Medical Subject Headings (MESH) of the National Library of Medicine in the US. By using the idea of “consensus passage” [27]. The authors compare how terms act as concept symbols. Several “consensus scores” for individual document sections, such as terminology in the introduction, methodology, etc., showed “consensus usage” in the terminology in which the overall score in the study was 0.52, which they consider a good overall score compared to Small’s previous research, which had a score of 0.48. They found that concept groups were unambiguous or “semantically coherent” This implies that the concept symbols within the concept groups unequivocally refer to some common concept [27] (p. 232) and concluded that the terminology proposed served as a suitable candidate for “semi-automatic thesaurus construction” [27] (p. 236).

Another example that involves bibliometrics for the visualization of thesauruses is the one performed by Boyack [34]. In the Unified Astronomy Thesaurus and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) thesaurus, the method used was the co-occurrence of terms to visualize and compare different “cluster solutions” as categories for the Unified Astronomy Thesaurus and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) thesaurus. The approach used in the first steps involved indexing documents based on first-level thesaurus terms. As the authors stated, the resulting maps could be used as templates “to display contents of publication sets” [34] (p. 1153). Furthermore, they also mention how some of the findings could improve the structure or “rule bases” of some terms in a KOS. Unfortunately, the authors do not give examples of such term identification. However, it is a good example of bibliometrics for maintaining thesaurus terminology.

One example of developing ontologies as controlled vocabularies involves using bibliometrics for ontology visualization. Markscheffel [35] comments on the limitations of these methods, including those of the technologies available in the early 2000s. However, it is a good approximation of the potential use of keyword extraction for ontology visualizations. The method used involved Bibtex as the software to structure the content of the analyzed records. A database was also designed using MySQL. Due to the large amount of data, the interpretation process is also an issue in the mentioned research, a problem that persists even with current technologies.

Another example is the use of bibliometrics for ontology extraction in the bioscience domain. The project was framed under the Gene Ontology Consortium [36] and its methodology combined bibliometrics with content analysis and discourse analysis. As they found that biologists were inconsistent in using biological terms, the resulting ontology helped classify gene products with controlled vocabulary. The paper provides a complete overview of the ontology’s properties. However, it does not discuss how they applied bibliometrics to develop or improve such an ontology. The conclusions suggest that concepts are not independent of the scientist’s opinion, indicating that subjectivity is also present.

Based on the previous examples, one can argue that despite the fruitful contributions involving bibliometrics and other methods for KO, there is a lack of information on how such mixed-methods approaches were applied and how they impact or influence the results. Furthermore, there has been an important interest within libraries in using bibliometrics for collection development and the revision of controlled vocabularies. Again, these are just a few examples in which methodologies are described using IT bibliometric tools and techniques, e.g., Gureev and Mazov [37], Pastva et al. [38], Haddow [39], etc.

1.3. Global Studies and the Interdisciplinary Challenge

Since the early 1990s, GS academic programs have been launched in US Universities, such as the University of Wisconsin, UC Santa Barbara, and Duke University. However, it was not until a decade later that GS scholars opened the floor for epistemological discussions about the field itself. In 2007, the University of California invited scholars involved in GS programs to join the newly created Global Studies Consortium. In its mission statement, the Consortium highlighted that it was “open to any academic program in the world [including] programs that are transnational, transcultural, global/local, world systems, or cross area, and that are hospitable to interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches within the humanities and social sciences to global studies” [40].

Meetings of GS experts in the late 2000s helped establish common concepts that delineated important themes for the development of GS programs, including the concept of a world systemic framework based on Wallerstein’s World System theory, transnationalism, and the global/local concepts. Another contribution from GS meetings was the identification of five aspects where scholars summarized the main characteristics of GS: transnational, interdisciplinary, contemporary and historical, critical, multicultural, and globally responsible [41].

Although Juergensmeyer [42] established the origins of GS in fields such as sociology and anthropology and, to a lesser degree, history, it is quite difficult to trace the origins of the field as various disciplines, not just those mentioned, influenced how it developed through time. One example is area studies (AS), also known as a co-field or a precursor to GS [9,43,44]. Therefore, I present those related fields cited by GS scholars in 11 selected books in the following section. It is not easy to track all contributions from other fields; however, it is clear that GS uses various methods and perspectives, taking from traditional disciplines’ “core concepts” and re-presenting them in a new way where spaces are interconnected and multicentric [9].

Due to this novel approach, global studies is commonly defined as a new emergent interdisciplinary field [45,46]. However, it is certainly true that studies on global phenomena are not new, as scholars were interested in entanglements among geographies long before the term “global” was widely used. Therefore, what is really this novel approach in GS? Scholars from its disciplines contribute to demonstrating its newness. For example, the political scientists Manfred Seger and Amentahru Wahlrab [8] mention how GS “challenges a fractured mindset that encourages the division of knowledge into sharply demarcated areas” … [it also] generates an academic space of tension … in which the very notion of globalization itself is being continuously produced and contested” [8] (p. 7).

Furthermore, the philosopher Alexander Chumakov mentions how GS proposes an understanding of global current issues and “the resulting relations and balance forces of the world” by the elaboration of a “language of interdisciplinary communication” [47] (p. 224). This study’s contribution relates to this aspect because it identifies such terminology for characterizing the GS domain. The methods face the challenges of interdisciplinary vocabularies, an aspect discussed in the following section.

1.4. Interdisciplinary Fields and KO

Interdisciplinary content is a well-known concern among LIS professionals. In 2007, contributors to the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) conference titled “Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organisation of scientific knowledge” argued that traditional KOS approaches were insufficient for organizing interdisciplinary knowledge. As a result, the León Manifesto (2007) [48] stated the importance of methods using faceted classifications instead of decimal or enumerative ones. The Manifesto also introduces the idea of multidimensional knowledge [49] and the need for new ways of designing KOS.

Discussions about the efficiency of modern classifications date back more than a century. Issues highlighted at the ISKO conference in 2007 were the same that claimed the Indian mathematician and librarian Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan (1892–1972), author of the faceted Colon Classification (CC), and the American librarian Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870–1955), author of the faceted Bibliographical Classification (BC). The former claimed that not only subjects but also fields were multidimensional [50] (p. 45), being those in a continuous change (p. 87). The latter stated that decimal classifications were not coherent with the “scientific order”, such as the “inconvenient separations of closely related subjects” [51] (p. 412). In a later document, he also mentioned: “No static structure can satisfy the needs of these dynamic, vital interests; a plastic system, adaptive as well as expansible, is requisite for the ever changing developments” [52] (p. 19).

From the perspective of those early “classificationists”, phenomena with various dimensions might not have a disciplinary bond. However, as Ranganathan claimed: “Sensitive, sprightly Dewey marched forward and Triumphed” [51] (p. 82). Indeed, by the time the pioneers of faceted classifications offered alternatives to overcome the limitations of decimal hierarchical KOS, relations of power [53] and the idealization of the US as an international benchmark positioned the American classifications worldwide as standards for organizing knowledge until now [54].

As mentioned, the faceted approach is one accurate option for KOS. Within it, the possibility of integrating different levels of description is not necessarily attached to a single class (categories), giving a chance to describe interdisciplinary content. For example, Szostak, Gnoli, and López Huertas argued that one of many ways to avoid ambiguity in “cross-disciplinary communication” is the use of logical classifications of relations among phenomena, theories, and methods [11].

This study employs a classification approach with a relation-phenomena perspective. It is called integrative level classification (ILC) and was launched in 2004. Its notation reflects the relations that link each phenomenon to another; similarly, bibliometrics uses co-occurrence frequency to link two terms or keywords. Therefore, the main advantage ILC gives to this study is how “Instead of disciplines, as is usual in bibliographic classifications, it directly lists phenomena” [55]. In this case, the phenomena are found in interdisciplinary content within the GS’s academic literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Understanding GS Through Selected Theoretical Books

First, it was compulsory to understand what GS is, how GS scholars defined the field, and which other fields have influenced it. Based on a clear discussion of epistemological frameworks in GS, thirteen theoretical books were selected. The time frame of publication was not considered in the selection, as the chosen books explicitly express an interest in GS as a field of knowledge within their content. This fact is important because there are several book titles on global processes or globalization as a phenomenon, but they are not interested in theorizing the field. Therefore, the selection criteria included (1) relevance to GS definitions and theories considering GS as a field of knowledge, (2) incorporation of interdisciplinary perspectives, and (3) the trajectory and recognition of authors in the GS field.

Table 1. Selected theoretical books on Global Studies.

Code	Author(s)	Title	Year	Publisher
TM1	Campbell, P.J., MacKinnon, A., and Stevens, C.R.	An introduction of Global Studies.	2011	Wiley-Blackwell
TM2	O’Byrne, D.J. and Hensby, A.	Theorizing Global Studies.	2011	Palgrave Macmillan
TM3	M. Juergensmeyer (Ed.)	Thinking Globally: A Global Studies Reader.	2013	University of California Press.
TS4	Grinin, L.; Ilyin, I.; Hewrrmann, P.; and Korotayev, A.	Globalistics and Globalization Studies: Global Transformations and Global Future	Eds. 2012–2017	Uchitel
TM5	Smallman, S. and Brown, K.	Introduction to international and Global Studies.	2015	University of North Carolina Press
TM6	Stoddart, E. and Collins, J.	Social and Cultural Foundations in Global Studies	2016	Routledge
TM7	Steger, M.B. and Wahlrab, A.	What is Global Studies? Theory and practice.	2017	Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group
TM8	Darian-Smith, E. and McCarty, P.C.	The global turn: theories, research designs, and methods for Global Studies	2017	University of California
TM9	McCormick, J.	Introduction to Global Studies.	2018	Palgrave
TM10	Juergensmeyer, M.; Sassen, S.; Steger, M. B., and Faessel, V. (Eds.)	Oxford Handbook of Global Studies	2019	Oxford University Press
TM11	Loecke, K. and Middell, M. (Eds.)	The many facets of Global Studies: Perspectives from the Erasmus Mundus Global Studies Programme	2019	Leipziger Universitätsverlag
TM12	Cai, T. and Liu, Z.	Global Studies: Volume 1: Globalization and Globality	2020	Routledge
TM13	Hamed Hosseini S.A., Goodman, J., Motta, S.C. and Gills, B.	The Routledge handbook of transformative global studies	2021	Routledge, Taylor, and Francis Group

TM Corresponds to titles that are Monographies while TS are Title Series.

presents the main bibliographical information of the selected sources.

The contents of the previous books helped to understand the field, set the criteria for content selection, and create a preliminary list of GS journal titles from the following:

• Introductory discussions and theoretical chapters about GS: Identification of content about the definition of the field, its main characteristics, theories, and related fields.
• Main chapters with study cases: Identification of the main topics used by scholars as examples of research subjects in GS.
• References: Manual identification of the main disciplines included in the referenced sources.
• Appendixes: Lists of bibliographical material that provide general information on academic journal titles and GS websites.

The previous books, along with participation in working groups, summer schools, conferences, and lectures at the GS doctoral program at Leipzig University, helped me understand GS.

2.2. GS and Its Terminology in Reference Sources (Method I)

The main purpose of knowing the terminology used by some experts of the GS field will contribute to the following:

−

Generate group categories that will help to understand the terminology of the GS domain community.

−

Be able to identify the key concepts related to the GS field to improve the thematic criteria in choosing the sample (academic journals).

−

Become familiar with the GS terminology to compare some results among visualizations and analyze results.

Table 2. Three GS reference sources.

Code	Author	Title	Year	Publisher
RS1	Anheier, H. K., Juergensmeyer, M., and Faessel, V. (Eds.).	The Encyclopedia of Global Studies [43]	2012	Sage
RS2	Chumakov, A. N., Mazour, I. I., and Gay, W. C. (Eds.)	The Global Studies Encyclopedic Dictionary (2014) [56]	2014	Rodopi
RS3	A. Iriye and P. Y. Saunier (Eds.)	Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (2009) [57]	2009	Palgrave Macmillan

includes the three reference sources from which the terminology was obtained:

The Encyclopedia of Global Studies (2012), (2014), and RS3, Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (2009).

Encyclopedias and dictionaries (Until now, there is not a thesaurus for the GS field. A thesaurus that includes global issues under international relations (IR) and area studies is Seydel, D. (Ed.) and European Information Network on International Relations and Area Studies. (2006). European thesaurus on international relations and area studies. Berlin: Stiftung Wiss. und Politik. Multilingual version on: http://www.fiv-iblk.de/information/information_thesaurus.htm (accessed on 3 April 2025) are considered instruments of knowledge normalization. Due to the newness of the field, currently, there are just two reference sources about the field. It was added in the selection the title represented under the code RS3 (Table 2) because its terminology is coherent with the description given by GS authors of what the field is about. By the identification of subject categories in the chosen publications, it was possible to obtain a broad picture of the GS field through the main categories and relations proposed by experts in the organizational structure of contents.

Because the structure of the reference sources already organized content under subject categories, it was decided to propose categories different from those to gain another perspective of the field. Figure 1 presents the categories in which the terminology was grouped.

The names of some sub-categories are obvious and do not need further explanation, as the examples help illustrate the type of content the sub-category would have. However, there are a couple of categories in which names are not that evident. Let us take the category called Spaces. It contains terms/concepts that refer to physical locations (Geographic) and spaces that are not clearly defined or where processes go beyond borders. One example is the term New York City. In the encyclopedia, New York is more than a city, it is a space characterized by many interactions, networks, and flows that go further than the city’s borders. In this case, New York was allocated under the sub-category Settings. However, it was not the case for other cities mentioned in the encyclopedia. Therefore, one could find a city under the sub-category Geographic and Settings.

There were some issues while trying to find the “right” place to allocate a term. In many cases, the authors’ approaches helped to make final decisions. Let us take another term to illustrate this: space, outer. One could think the right place for it could be Spaces (Settings). However, the author’s approach was in terms of innovation. The advances in the sciences and the engineering disciplines made exploring outer space possible.

As many others, this term addressed positive aspects/attributes that generate advantages or values for the world or society. In contrast, there were other terms seen as disadvantages/challenges/issues, e.g., terrorism, racial supremacy, homophobia, etc. Those terms that refer to advantages and disadvantages were allocated in the sub-category Assets (Non-tangible) and Issues; that is, all positive, e.g., multiculturality, cultural diversity, memory, and negative, e.g., failed states, sex trafficking, urban diseconomies, aspects. Hence, space, outer is a term under the Assets (Non-tangible) category.

Finally, two similar categories are Processes, States, Periods, and Theories, Views, and Ideas. In cases such as creolization or homogenization, where there could be processes or views, the author’s approach helped allocate them.

2.3. Global Studies and Co-Occurrence Bibliometric Analysis (Method II)

The two bibliometric software programs used here, VOSviewer and CiteSpace, are designed to extract information from journals, not books, and in English, not other languages. Therefore, the selection concentrated in periodicals, mainly academic journals, and two working papers’ titles, published in the English language. Due to the closeness of the field with others already mentioned, such as area studies or international relations (IR), there is a limitation in the coverage of types of sources along with the limitation of content in English language. Such limitations are discussed in Section 4.4.

The selection spanned the period from 1990 to 2019, encompassing 30 years of analysis. The period was selected considering that most databases before 1990 have limited coverage of digitalized content, and this became more evident during the process of choosing sources. For example, area studies journals have included more transnational and transregional content in recent decades. This was more evident, for instance, in articles from this and other fields performing comparative studies among regions or countries from different latitudes.

As mentioned, there is no thematic category for global studies in bibliographical databases. Therefore, several search strategies were used in UlrichWeb, including the prefixes that have a thematic alignment with GS, such as Global*, Transregional*, Transnational*, International*, comparative*, and all categories with the term “studies”, to find content about American Studies, African Studies, Asian Studies, etc. The following aspects helped select the retrieved journal titles: (1) How scholars defined the field, (2) the study cases and topics scholars used as examples of GS research in theoretical books, and (3) the introductory chapters of reference sources. Finally, the valuable knowledge gained within academic working groups and workshops held at the GS doctoral program at Leipzig University is worth mentioning for such selection.

Therefore, the following sources helped to select the peer-reviewed academic journals for the analysis:

Lists of recommended journals by GS scholars in academic books

−

The serial directory UlrichWeb and

−

Recommended literature on the Websites of GS academic programs

A total of 183 journals were included in the bibliometric analysis. (Supplementary File S1: Selected Periodical Titles and Supplementary File S2: Total number of Periodicals). Fourteen of them were not indexed in any database. Therefore, Websites provided the data for the manual collection of terms in titles and abstracts. As they were not indexed, keyword visualization, for example, was not possible. The visualization of terms was possible with VOSviewer. For the visualization, it was necessary to concatenate two different shows in Excel: One for the article’s titles and another for the article’s abstracts. The following formula was used:

=A1&”.”&A2

where A1 is the cell in which the title of an article is located, and A2 is the correspondent abstract of the article. After concatenation, the resulting cells were saved in a Notepad text file and uploaded to VOSviewer.

As the other 169 journals were indexed in WoS (79), Scopus (52), and Dimensions (38), it was possible to obtain not just visuals of the terms based on titles and abstracts but also visuals from keywords. Two bibliometric software programs allowed the comparison of results: VOSviewer and CiteSpace. The use of two bibliometric software programs allowed two complementary visuals of the data. With VoSviewer, it was possible to see the nodes (terms) within clusters differentiated by colors. With CiteSpace, it was possible to see clusters with suggested cluster names. Due to the use of the two software programs, a narrow and broader approach to the results was possible. Figure 2 shows the two complementary visualizations from the two software programs.

Figure 2 presents two different views of the same data. The cluster summary (top of the figure) from CiteSpace allowed the identification of the sample’s broad subject categories while the names of the nodes in each cluster helped the understanding of relations between and among clusters. The visuals also helped to compare results in which, for example, three clusters’ names in CiteSpace and three nodes in VoSviewer were the same in both software programs. Those are underlined in the VOSviewer visualization (Right) and correspond to: #0 Microfinance, #1 United Kingdom, and #4 Climate change.

2.4. The Two Complementary Methods for Domain Analysis

In summary, terms and keywords extracted from bibliographical records represent subject themes related to GS academic research in journal titles. This information, complemented by the analysis of terminology in reference sources, provided one view of the domain for KOS development, such as controlled vocabularies. Those vocabularies are “a closed list of named subjects “ used in the classification process. “In library science, this is known as an indexing language. The constituents of a controlled vocabulary are usually known as terms” [58] (p. 381).

Figure 3 summarizes the methodologies and includes some questions that helped answer this study’s main research question.

Bibliometrics, complemented with the analysis of reference sources, enable domain analysis under the LIS perspective based on the following:

Numbers 1 and 2 in Figure 3 support the field’s understanding by identifying core concept definitions, related disciplines, dimensions of the field, and case studies as emblematic topics of interest. Furthermore, identifying disciplines based on referenced works within the bibliography used in books supports the findings on related fields that emerged in the references of books.

Number 3 comprises the journal sample from which terms (titles, abstracts) and keywords were extracted. It is important to mention that this approach does not consider journal impact factors in citation rates. The maps’ visibility of a particular relation relies on the number of times two topics co-occur.

Numbers 4 and 5 illustrate visualizations and their interpretation. Understanding visualizations in context is only possible by revising software reports (cluster summaries, narrative summaries, burst history, three maps, etc.). Additionally, the data files of the networks provide all co-occurring relations that are difficult to see in the visualizations due to the large number of nodes. The data obtained here allowed the selection of various pairs of linked phenomena taken as examples to demonstrate the reason and meaning (context) behind relations to provide a meaningful link term when applying them using ILC.

2.5. The Terminology and the Classification System ILC

Text data about the topic maps and networks were included in separate files, accompanying the resulting visualizations. The data were used to identify different categories of highly co-occurring topics, which helped the author understand topic tendencies over time by comparing the results obtained from the three databases and the non-indexed journals. Now, it was necessary to see those relations in context to initiate the analysis phase.

The analysis phase, therefore, consisted of identifying articles whose content revealed certain relationships between terms and keywords with high co-occurrence degrees. By using the option called “three maps” in CiteSpace, it was possible to see the text in which a certain relation occurred. The software also provides a link to the publication on the publisher’s website or the document object identifier (DOI) to access it. This feature was used to reach the context of a term within the sample based on the sample’s results. However, even if it was possible to link terms with articles, the analysis relied on manual searches as the information was exported into Excel sheets (.cvs files). CiteSpace does not provide a search feature. Figure 4 shows the software’s visual output of the features of three maps with the articles in which a certain term co-occurred.

By exploring the articles, it was possible to identify relevant topics within the GS research, including global governance, migration, identity, ethnicity, and global health [13]. Results include the example of global governance, as the selected term that was used for testing the relations among phenomena in the ILC classification system. Each term was searched into the classification, and the relation between different phenomena was established based on the classifications’ pre-defined facets (relations), e.g., Global governance (phenomena) interacting with (facet) organized civil society (phenomena).

The selected data provide the potential terminology for a KOS. In this case, the vocabulary can be used to describe GS content as a semantic tool for retrieval and access. Supplementary File S3 is an example of the selected vocabulary using the category Actors.

3. Results

3.1. Main Disciplines and Subject Categories in Books

The theoretical books provided information about what GS is and its main characteristics. Figure 5 highlights key terms used by scholars in GS theoretical books.

The previous literature review shows, among others, that GS “nourishing” fields and its so-called co-field, area studies, share similar topics of interest, such as nation-states, governance, migration, governmental and non-governmental organizations, etc. This fact constitutes an advantage that enables researchers to find the same concepts from different perspectives. This also nourishes the fields when, for example, researchers find connections on similar research questions across disciplines, favoring what is known as “cumulative inquiry” in science [59].

The descriptions focus especially on theories, views, ideas, and on actors. This is evident when the authors describe GS theories under “topics of interest”, e.g., globalism, globality, global condition, deterritorialization, etc. Theories and actors are also the categories with more topics in reference sources, as I will show below.

Another interesting aspect is that research in the field does not have to be as broad as the whole world or involve several world regions to be “global.” It also does not mean avoiding research about local realities. Instead, research within the field reveals ways to understand the challenges and tensions that emerge in uneven, interconnected “spaces.”

Because of the field’s interdisciplinary character, publications’ content challenges disciplinary boundaries, combining research methodologies from the social sciences and humanities with topics from nature and biomedical sciences. These trends have become more evident over the last decade.

Finally, researchers in theoretical books often contribute new and innovative examples of GS research and its corresponding successful methodologies. However, such contributions contrast with a passive role regarding epistemological discussions in the field. Most of them cite the pioneers of the field when defining it, and no author from the selected books discusses the evolving dynamics of the field within the broad constellations of related disciplines or the wider landscape of science.

The sources and approaches used in this study complement each other. Figure 6 illustrates broad categories or disciplines, as identified from the authors’ bibliographical sources. This was a manual revision of all the sources referenced in the selected chapters of the books.

Here, global studies leads the list, especially in works published between 2015 and 2019. Scholars in those publications focus on globalization, globalism, the global condition, or global concepts such as global citizenship or the global imaginary. The earliest books published in 2011 have more references related to political science, international relations (IR), and economy. From 2012 onwards, GS maintained its leading position in all books except the work by the book coded TM6 in Table 1, in which cultural studies is the main topic. This is not a surprise, as it is evident that academics have a more comprehensive GS corpus to cite in recent years.

In the fourth position, it is also interesting that one important subject for GS scholars is the discussion about research methodologies and techniques used by the field. This fact is not surprising, as most scholars draw attention to the importance of identifying the main object of study and the research methodologies that characterize this new field. The previous analysis also shows an evident coherency between the “foundational” principles authors claim came from traditional fields like political science and IR, history, sociology, and economy and the fields evidenced in the cited bibliography they used, such as cultural studies or natural sciences.

Global Studies Main Topics in Three Selected Reference Sources

A closer look at the terminology used by some experts in the GS field in the chosen dictionaries and encyclopedias will contribute to the following:

• Generate group categories that will help us understand the terminology of the GS domain community.

−

Be able to identify the key concepts related to the GS field to improve the thematic criteria when choosing the sample of academic journal titles

−

Become familiar with the GS terminology, facilitating the selection of the phenomena included in the ILC case examples for the GS field.

The first results include a comparison of broad categories in the three reference sources (RS): RS1, The Encyclopedia of Global Studies (2012), RS2, The Global Studies Encyclopedic Dictionary (2014), and RS3, Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (2009).

The following are the main broad categories in which I was able to locate entry terms from the three reference sources:

• Communications and technology
• History, culture, and society
• Demography, environment, and resources
• Education and knowledge
• Economy and trade
• Global order and politics
• Law and regulations
• Religion and ideologies

Categories with more associated terms are numbers two, five, and six (Underlined). This fact is coherent with the results obtained from identifying the referenced literature in the thirteen books in which global studies, IR and political science, history, and cultural studies were the main topics of the referenced works. Another aspect is that GS methodologies are a constant topic in books. However, within the reference sources, there were just a couple of entries about methodologies such as empirical methods under methodological nationalism (RS1), social networking (RS1), hypothesis (RS2), and ecometry (RS2). Additionally, there wereentries on methods for creating specific content. Those entries are maps and map-making (RS1) and mapping (RS3).

Finally, the subcategories proposed in Figure 1 were applied to the entries of each reference source.

Table 3. Applied sub-categories in RS2, with a selection of five entries as examples.

Category	Sub-Category	Entry Term
History, Culture, and Society	Assets (non-tangible) and issues	Pacifism
		Responsibility, Global
		Hunger
		Ethnic Cleansing
		Gender Oppression
	Theories, Views, and Ideas	Anthropocentrism
		Globalization, Social effects
		Alarmism
		Alienation
		Consolation
	Processes, States, and Periods	Civil disobedience
		Colonialism
		Development, Social
		Globalization, Historical stages of
		Risk and Postmodern Society
Economy and Trade	Theories, Views, and Ideas	Economic Security
		Capitalism
		Ecometry
		Economic Security
		Economy, World
	Processes, States, and Periods	Debt crisis
		Perestroika
		Mergers and acquisitions
		Capital, Transnational
		Capital Punishment
	Channels, Instruments, and Assets (Tangible)	Golden Billion
		Green Taxes
		Composite Development Indices
Global Order and Politics	Theories, Views, and Ideas	Bipolar World
		Center and Periphery
		Political Culture
		Modernity, Global Changes of
		Globalization, limits of
	Processes, States, and Periods	Japanese Post-War
		Migration
		Mondialization
		Age of Great Unity
		Globalization
	Actors (Active)	Al Qaeda
		Third World
	States, Institutions, and Groups (9)	International Organizations
		European Union
		NATO Response Force

provides an example of the applied subcategories in RS2 in the three mentioned categories: history, culture and society; economy and trade; and global order and politics.

When comparing broad categories within the three reference sources, it was possible to see how each group of scholars focused on specific topic categories. For example, while RS2 had approximately 122 entry terms related to the category history, culture, and society, RS1 and RS3 included more entries under global order and politics. In RS2, the number of entries about economy and trade was just 30, while in RS3, the category with fewer terms was education and knowledge.

Sub-categories were also compared within the three reference sources. The results provided in Figure 7 show three categories with more entries.

Interestingly, even though each category has between 60 and more than 100 terms, the three publications share just a few. Let us begin with the sub-category theories, views, and ideas. The Encyclopedia of Global Studies appears to be more interested in concepts related to topics such as identities in global society (feminism, homophobia, multiculturalism, racial supremacy, xenophobia, etc.) and global governance (sovereignty, power, legitimacy, subsidiarity, etc.). RS1 focuses on culture (culture, cognitive cultural universals or cyberculture) and education (interdisciplinary, learning, constructivist theories of educational globalism, education, transnational, etc.). On the other hand, RS2 focuses on global orders (internationalism, cosmopolitanism, legitimacy, transparency, etc.)

The second category is Actors (Active), mainly institutions and groups. It is also worth mentioning the names of leading figures and intellectuals here. There are six actors in common because the Encyclopedia of Global Studies does not have any entry as a person, while RS1 has ten, and RS2 has six names of public figures or thinkers. The other reason is that the former focuses on the global economy and political institutions, while institutions in RS1 are philosophical or environmental. Finally, RS2 does not have an evident tendency in its actors. It addresses the communication sector (British Broadcasting Corporation), the environmental sector (World Conservation Union), the food industry sector (Coca-Cola, MacDonald’s), infrastructures (International Road Federation), etc.

Finally, the category processes, states, and periods is in third place. While in the Encyclopedia of Global Studies and in RS1, global and globalization prefixes are common in terms, they are rare in RS2. Some examples are antiglobalization movements and critics, the global south, the global village, globalization from below, global cities, etc.

3.2. Co-Occurred Terms and Keywords in GS Journal Titles and the ILC Classification

The Ulrich directory included 150 of the 184 title journals in the sample. This serial directory provided information that allowed the identification of the disciplines in which the directory allocates the journal titles. The directory refers to them as “subject areas.” Figure 8 presents the ones with more journal allocations.

The previous Ulrich “subject areas” or disciplines are coherent with those presented in Figure 6, which corresponds to the cited works in the thirteen selected books. The most mentioned/referenced disciplines influencing GS in both groups of sources are IR, political science, sociology, and history, followed by cultural studies, economics, and law. Now, this view is complemented by terms and keywords found in 183 journal titles. 79 of which were found in WoS, 52 in Scopus, 38 in Dimensions, and 14 were not indexed in any of them. The following is a broad description of results using bibliometrics. A comprehensive account of the results and their correspondent analysis is available in a previous publication [13].

Based on WoS subject categories, more than 60 percent of the journals belonged to the social sciences, less than 10 percent to the economy, 20 percent to environmental sciences, and the remaining to the arts and humanities. Fifty-seven percent of the total number of articles in WoS are concentrated in 15 of the 76 journals. The journal with the most articles was Ethnic and Racial Studies, with 5280 articles, followed by the Journal of Business Research, 5170, and European History Quarterly, with 3862 articles. The 15 journals focused mainly on migration, ethnic issues and law, history, urban and environmental planning, gender and culture, development, economy, and politics.

Even if the Scopus journals share common topics with WoS, there is an important presence of journals focusing on economy, health, and technology. Fifty-one percent of the articles are grouped in 15 journals addressing those topics, along with migration, climate change, and society issues. Examples of journal titles focused on those topics are Immigrants and minorities; Globalization, societies, and education; Religion; State and Society; and War and Society.

Almost 50 percent of the articles found in Dimensions came from six journals: New Global Studies, Comparative Economic Research—Central and Eastern Europe, Atlantic Studies—Global Currents, Competition and Change, Global Change, Peace and Security, and The International Journal of Human Rights. The latest, with 1218 titles, is 18 percent of the total number of titles indexed here. Topics include Migration, health, and environment.

It is impossible to show all relations that emerge within the bibliometric analysis; however, in

Table 4. Co-occurred terms within the sample: Selection of general and spatial terms.

Co-Occurred Terms (General)	Co-Occurred Terms (Countries/Geographies, Spaces)
Migration → identity Migration → ethnicity Migration → labor Global governance → organized civil society Global governance → policy formulation Economy → environment Economy → innovation Sustainable development → economic growth Global health → mortality Society → History Globalization → civil society Regional integration	United States → immigration Europe → immigrant population European Union → policy China → Chinese foreign policy Global production networks → China Global cities → inequality Eastern Europe → enlargement Responsibility → Lybia Global warming → Asia Pacific Power → China

Selected phenomena in Web of Science (WoS), Scopus (S), Dimensions (D), and non-indexed journals (N).

, I show some with the highest co-occurred degrees taken from the three citation databases and the non-indexed journals.

Identifying relations between phenomena does not explain why relations occur in a specific period. Therefore, as mentioned in the methodology, it was important to go back to the articles to see the relations in context. The next step was to check the meaning of those relations within the articles’ content. I take the relations underlined in the previous table as an example: Example 1. Global governance → organized civil society and Example 2. Global governance → Policy formulation

The following are the relations found after reading the main parts of the articles. The examples show just one article to explain how the relation was identified.

Example 1. Global governance → Organized civil society

Example 2. Global governance → Policy formulation

The revision of abstracts, introductory parts of articles, and, in some cases, conclusions helped to understand in which context GS academics used ’global governance’ as a key term in the GS lexicon. Then, the ILC classification was revised to determine which expressions (facets) could more accurately represent the relations proposed by the authors. In the previous relations, I highlighted in green the selected facet or relation. I also include in Figure 8 other terms that co-occur with global governance in articles found in WoS. Some selected relations include the ILC notation; those have higher co-occurrence degrees.

The same exercise was performed for most of the relations included in Table 4. This process helped to give meaning to the selected relations and understand the authors’ different interpretations of the same concept. Furthermore, the possibility of comparing relations that emerged in the various sources showed the importance of the non-indexed journals in the sample. Relations from them complement those present in other sources, but with a lower degree of co-occurrence.

For example, non-indexed journals share similar terminology with dimensions and include terms referring to East countries, financial crisis, conflict, etc., e.g., Eastern partnership, accession, status, conflict, Russia, Moldova, Ukraine, Libya, Syria, dispute, etc. WoS and Scopus do not address issues related to East European countries to the same extent that dimensions and non-indexed journals do. Furthermore, big nodes related to the names of countries in WoS and Scopus are mainly USA, United Kingdom, Russia, and China. Non-indexed journals encompass a diverse range of regions and countries, providing a more comprehensive global perspective. This fact is reasonable considering that the publishing countries of the non-indexed journals include the journals Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (Czech Republic), CES Working Paper (Romania), Rising Powers Quarterly (Turkey), and Age of Globalization (Russia).

4. Discussion

4.1. The Contribution of Various Sources for the Characterization of the Global Studies Field

Using various sources and types of thematic categories, ranging from disciplines to specific concepts in books or entry terms in encyclopedias and dictionaries, overcomes the limitations of disciplinary categories, which do not fully reveal what an interdisciplinary field is about. This is why GS content is generally located in bibliographic databases under the category “Social Sciences: Comprehensive Works”, or, in other words, “miscellaneous”, which includes, among other things, works that do not fit into the other categories.

Within the book’s bibliography and in Ulrich’s categories, disciplines identified belonged mainly to the social sciences. Those disciplines are coherent with what GS academics mention about their main related fields: political science, international relations (IR), history, sociology, cultural studies, economics, etc. However, the entry terms in reference sources and terms and keywords in journals complement those that in recent years, include topics from other disciplines such as global health, environmental issues, energy issues, and climate change.

Global studies sources have mostly been referenced in theoretical books since 2015, as the results show, and 20 per cent of journals in the sample (40 in total) include the prefix “global*” in their titles. Furthermore, three journals include the name of the field in their titles: New Global Studies (2007), Journal of International and Global Studies (2009), and The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies (2013). Of the 17 monographs on Global Studies published between 2011 and 2020, 11 were published in the previous five years.

Comparing the publishing starting years of these titles with the first theoretical books about the field, also around the early 2010’s (For example, the titles: An introduction of Global Studies (2011) or Theorizing Global Studies (2011)), one can say that global studies, as a field of knowledge, was mature enough to start publishing its own “core literature” early in the new millennium. This demonstrates a rapid growth of theoretical discussions, which undoubtedly confirms the emergence of the so-called “new field of inquiry.” However, the fact that the field constructed most of its epistemological basis in the new millennium explains its lack of visibility in current knowledge classifications worldwide.

The Main Characteristics of GS Are Based on the Studies’ Results

Results from reference sources show a great diversity of topics, and from comparing the reference sources, very few entries in the selected encyclopedias and dictionaries were present in all three sources. Recalling Smiraglia’s definition of a domain in which consensus should be achieved, do we see here a domain or community of knowledge that is not mature enough to reach such a consensus, at least in what academics consider the main topics of interest of the field? Based on the coherence of topics shown in Figure 5 and the revision of theoretical books, I argue here that this is one of the main characteristics of GS: the complementary views among thinkers and schools of thought and its openness and adaptability as an interdisciplinary field. The eleven selected books and reference sources clearly demonstrate that experts in the field shared an interest in its main contested theories and core concepts, which establish the common ground of its epistemological rationale.

Because certain fields influence every GS school, the disciplinary formation of academic chairs and professors, as well as the historical development of GS in each country or region, results in a terminology that showcases its richness, defining its interdisciplinary character. This fact is evident especially when comparing the terminologies from the Encyclopedia of Global Studies (USA) and the Global Studies Encyclopedic Dictionary (Russia). While the former one has more entries with the “global” prefix, along with economic and political terms, the latter has more entries related to philosophy, anthropology and the natural sciences. This fact reaffirms the difficulties classifications face when accommodating interdisciplinary fields in disciplinary structures.

The sources also indicate a field that is especially interested in (1) core theories, views, ideas and on (2) active and passive actors. Books and reference sources focus on discussing classic theories, views, or ideas that contributed to the development of the field, extracting them from their original context and applying them to current global issues within new frameworks. Examples, also present in Figure 5, are deterritorialization, McDonalization, polarization, etc. Those concepts present in early books are rarely mentioned in the latest publications. I make the exception here of the deterritorialization concept frequently included in recent sources due to the growing interest in research topics about boundaries, spaces, mobilities, etc.

Books and reference sources also frequently mention active and passive actors. Within active actors, international organizations and minorities or populations at risk are particularly highlighted. Passive actors are mostly resources, such as water or land. The whole category of actors is relatively coherent, as passive ones relate directly to the active ones. For example, actors pertaining to resources and the resources themselves are, for example, extracting industries sector → land resources.

Even if actors were present in bibliometric results with high co-occurrence degrees, processes were the most persistent topics in the sample, like mobility processes and changes at the regional and national level (governmental laws, supranational policies, etc.), such as migration, immigration, development (regional), or integration (into the EU).

The results show that GS is especially interested in the world’s current challenges and processes involving tensions and changes with their resulting consequences. GS also examines how several actors play a role in such dynamics and react to them. There is also a special interest in understanding and finding solutions to topics that describe inequalities and disparities.

4.2. The Mixed-Methods Approach and Its Contribution to LIS Using Bibliometrics

As explained in the introductory part of this article, LIS authors are aware of the potential advantages of using bibliometrics for domain analysis. However, based on an exhaustive search, there is a lack of studies giving a full methodological account of how a mixed-methods approach using bibliometrics contributes to domain analysis in interdisciplinary fields of knowledge.

The scientific literature provides a well-covered account of bibliometric studies for domain analysis both in a theoretical way [60,61] and empirically, applying bibliometric technologies for various disciplines such as information science [62,63], political science [64], psychology [65], etc. Most studies like those rely on predefined categories in bibliographic databases, and they do not explain how the domain is perceived and understood to proceed with the selection of sources. Furthermore, these studies do not extend beyond describing what visualizations reveal and how the field can be interpreted through citation or network collaboration patterns.

In this study, the methodology includes understanding the GS domain as a precondition for conducting domain analysis, such as becoming familiar with the field’s evolution and milestones, experts’ definitions of the field, and identifying co-fields or related fields, as well as the main schools of thought. Furthermore, the methodology outlines how results are incorporated into a KOS to comply with the final purpose of such analysis, which is essential when conducting domain analysis for LIS studies.

The results prove the suitability of bibliometrics for domain analysis, which, combined with the revision of terminology in reference sources, enable the answer to the study’s research question: How can bibliometrics and the analysis of terminology in selected theoretical books and reference sources allow domain analysis in interdisciplinary fields of knowledge and, more precisely, in the Global Studies field? The methodology contributed to answering it due to the following:

• A selection of sources that did not rely on pre-defined categories but in the manual selection of them based on content revision
• The use of two complementary bibliometric software programs
• The analysis of terminological reference sources based on a non-disciplinary categorization of entries (Own proposed categories)
• The analysis of sources in context, where the content of articles with high co-occurrence of specific terms and keywords provided a list of main topics that GS scholars are interested in (Global governance, as selected as an example in Figure 9).
• The application of co-occurred phenomena into a non-hierarchical classification of sciences.

Another aspect that is not commonly found in bibliometric studies is the inclusion of non-indexed journals. Even in bibliometric studies on fields, researchers who use only mainstream databases for domain analysis, such as WoS or Scopus, are aware that they are missing content; however, they cannot determine to what extent. In total, 14 journals (out of 183) are not indexed. Even though the number of non-indexed journals is relatively low compared to the entire sample, the results showed that the non-indexed journals provided relations among phenomena that complement those found in WoS and Scopus. In this sense, it is not about how much data were not included but if the selected data provided a comprehensive view of the field. Based on the results, any study for a domain analysis that aims to reveal topic tendencies in interdisciplinary fields does not fully account for what the field is about if it considers only mainstream databases, such as WoS or Scopus.

Although it is a well-known fact, it is worth mentioning that indexing processes, especially for WoS, are highly demanding, and only a select number of journals can enter and maintain their place in it. The non-indexed journals in this study comply with most of the requirements for indexing in these databases. They include peer-review processes, keywords, abstracts in English, and a publication frequency. Most have an international editorial board and are supported by research centers or universities.

Citation databases such as WoS demand requirements that low-budget publications cannot meet. For example, WoS requires issues to be released in the month stated by the journal. Small publications typically operate on an ad honorem basis or involve scholars contributing some of their time to managerial tasks. Due to the extensive editorial work required, these publications often struggle to release issues on time. Therefore, journals in this sample, as well as many others, lack visibility not due to the quality of their content but rather because of limited human and financial resources.

4.3. What Does the Process of Content Analysis Say About the Field, and What Is Its Contribution to the ILC Classification?

Comparing the phenomena that emerged in bibliometric visualizations and revising certain aspects of the articles’ content revealed that authors from some selected articles did not use “global” but rather known disciplinary terms in their keywords, despite employing a global vocabulary in the content of their articles. For example, articles referring to global governance in their content include the term governance within the author’s keywords. The global is omitted. Does it still prefer disciplinary, traditional vocabularies in scholars interested in global issues? Is this omission related to the fact that some academics consider global prefixes to be just buzzwords? Are such omissions contributing to obscuring the contribution of the GS field in the whole system of science?

Regarding semantic ambiguity, does the same word convey the same meaning in the “interdiscipline” field and its field of origin? It is reasonable to bring again the importance of analyzing content in context. As seen, relations among phenomena, used as descriptors or subject terms, help to diminish ambiguity. Additionally, due to the presence of the “global” term in its concepts, the GS field has the advantage of clearly defining its scope in much of its terminology. A researcher who sees “global governance” alongside “ethnicity” in a list of keywords understands the dimension the author is approaching. Additionally, it is worth noting that authors in journal articles tend not to discuss global governance or global policy to the same extent as authors in theoretical GS books do. As most authors apply theories to study cases, they talk about the global governance of health or global migration policies.

As terminologies become more specific, KOS developers must know the challenges of designing interdisciplinary controlled vocabularies. Should vocabularies include, for example, global governance of health instead of the broad term global governance? This question opens other discussions about the extent to which vocabulary should consist of high levels of specificity. Interdisciplinary or specialized researchers’ decisions might result in missing useful content just because the cataloguer’s subject terms to describe content are too broad or too narrow.

The ILC faceted classification helps mitigate such ambiguity, as it focuses on two phenomena and their relationships, which are reflected in the bibliometric results, which relate to two keywords or two terms. Relating phenomena under the ILC classification constitutes one attempt to utilize interdisciplinary content for knowledge description and access. Traditional classifications have one main subject heading directly related to the discipline’s classification number. Here, as a relation links the phenomena, both are present in the classification number, not just one. Therefore, after a search, a researcher does not retrieve just the main topics of a work but how they are related.

4.4. Limitations of the Study and Further Research

Subjectivity played a crucial role in various processes during this study, particularly in selecting the journal sample. The process was influenced by a select group of authors who provided their understanding of the main characteristics of GS literature. This aspect, along with the field’s self-understanding, helped to build a set of criteria that applied but was not exempt from its own biases.

Another limitation of the study was the primary language of the selected sources, which were limited to publications in English due to the requirements of the bibliometric software. Further research should consider the inclusion of other languages in which the software is even possible to be used if translations are needed. Furthermore, the selection did not include different formats, such as books, working papers, dissertations, and other types of grey literature. Further research should consider other types of sources to do a more comprehensive analysis of the field.

Finally, it is essential to note that the sample span (1989–2019) coincides with a pre-pandemic period of knowledge production. Visualizations reveal certain dynamics that highlight the significant representation of health sciences in global terminology, particularly in Scopus journals. However, the results do not include recent global challenges and threats such as digital globalization [66], the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian aggression in Ukraine, popular uprisings in Latin America and the Middle East, and political conflicts between the East and the West, several of those which are still present now.

This limitation can be overcome in the future research on topic tendencies beyond 2020. The results could be used to compare current data with topics found in additional journals and new vocabularies that could emerge in other reference sources. This could also be used to analyze emergent interdisciplinary lexicon that could evidence collaboration between fields of study in GS or other fields. Understanding the context in which complex relations among phenomena emerge, especially during periods of crisis, enables a reevaluation of the natural chaos of knowledge production, one of the primary challenges faced by LIS professionals and a goal sought by many scholars.

Further research for domain analysis for this and other interdisciplinary fields will benefit when additional complementary data are included, helping to enhance the understanding of the object of study. Within the introductory sections, the importance of the community or communities of knowledge for domain analysis was mentioned. Taking GS as an example, the research on the current perceptions of GS scholars, intellectuals, and specialists regarding the field’s dynamics, research areas, and future topic trends will complement the results obtained from bibliographical sources. This can be carried out by selecting (1) a group of lead academics, including those who have set the main theories of the field taking the advantage that most of them are still alive and authored the selected books in the sample of this research, i.e., Mark Juergensmeyer (University of California, Santa Barbara, CA USA), Manfred B. Steger (University of Hawaii, HI, Manoa), Helmut K. Anheier (Hertie School, Berlin, Germany), Saskia Sassen (Columbia University, New York, NY, USA), Leonid E. Grinin (Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia), etc., and (2) a group of special librarians in academic libraries from universities where GS has been established since the early 2000s can provide current research interests and historical milestones of the field based on, for example, main topics on collection development, e.g., University of California (Berkeley, CA, USA), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Champaign, IL, USA), University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, PA, USA), Sophia University (Tokyo, Japan), Hitotsubashi University (Kunitachi, Japan), Leipzig University (Leipzig, Germany), Melbourne RMIT University (Melbourne, Australia), etc.

Interviews with these groups of scholars and specialists, supported by Delphi methods and discourse analysis technologies such as NVivo or artificial intelligence (AI), will enable the section to explore other topic trends not included in the current research. Such additional topic trends will overcome the limitation mentioned earlier regarding the time frame of the sample, which excludes important global challenges.

5. Conclusions

The present study aims to identify the subject tendencies related to the global studies (GS) domain from the perspective of library and information science (LIS). This perspective extends beyond mere domain description, as the results are suitable for future development of a knowledge organization system (KOS). Most studies analyzing a domain and utilizing bibliometric software describe the main patterns based on the software’s visualizations, such as citation analysis, co-author analysis, and term analysis. However, this study concentrates on the relations among phenomena, an approach proposed by [11], for KOS development.

This approach faces the challenge of describing interdisciplinary knowledge, the kind of knowledge that emerges from the terminology used in publications related to the GS field, extracting terms and keywords from journal articles. LIS literature often mentions how bibliometrics, combined with other methods, suits domain analysis. However, during the literature review, while many domain analysis studies employed bibliometrics, only a few conducted research with the ultimate purpose of KOS development. Even those give scarce information on the methodologies and data analysis process.

In this study, the bibliometric results were approachable, readable, and coherent in both visualizations: terms and keywords. It is argued that this fact relates to how the sample was chosen. It was not the result of a broad search strategy performed directly into databases. A pre-selection of journals and the manual revision of content and keywords helped obtain coherent bibliometric visualizations. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to perform a manual selection of journals in bibliometric studies that involve domain analysis, especially in interdisciplinary fields of knowledge.

The methodologies employed helped to answer the proposed research question by applying the resulting terminology, as generated by bibliometric software, to the faceted classification integrative level classification (ILC). The challenge here was to utilize the existing classes in ILC. As the classification is a relatively recent project (it launched its second edition in 2014), its terminology is systematically included. Its development also depends on projects to increase the number of classes (phenomena). Therefore, a significant number of terms are not yet included in ILC. Thus, not all the terminology was normalized using ILC. However, studies like this, in which terminology emerges from reference sources and bibliometric analysis, helps nourish its terminological corpus.

Furthermore, by giving the selected terminology a context, it was possible to relate it to the specific cases of interest in the GS domain, reaching the context in which a particular concept gave meaning to a discourse. The allocation of entries under categories was possible after revising author definitions, with the aim of answering the question: Is this concept a process, a system, a theoretical view, or an actor? Identifying context was possible without directly accessing the articles and revising the fields that librarians usually approach for subject description, such as title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.

The previous ideas for classification improvements reinforce what this study confirms after a closer examination of the authors’ keywords. Some authors use concepts that do not fully describe their works in the cases described. They prefer traditional or broad terminology over “global” terms. This fact confirms the need to complement the authors’ keywords with topic relations.

Although this study does not solve the problem of interdisciplinary knowledge organization, which has been discussed by many for decades, it constitutes one effort to show how the methods used can help enhance how information professionals nourish the domain’s vocabularies for description and access, especially for interdisciplinary domains. As this study does not propose a solution for interdisciplinary organization in its central structure, e.g., the structure of a KOS, such as a classification system, it leverages software technologies to extract subject terms that can enrich classification structures, such as the ILC classification.

The present study also shows the validity of bibliometrics as a suitable method for domain analysis from the lens of LIS. Further research, considering this and similar studies, could demonstrate the validity of the methods. Its main contribution is the structure of relations between two topics, which is coherent with interdisciplinary classifications such as ILC and also links two phenomena. The second proposed methodology complemented the vocabulary extracted with the bibliometric approach with a more epistemological view of the field based on reference sources.

Regarding the GS field, although there has been an increase in theoretical contributions, there is a lack of recent studies on the performance of the field in academia and its impact on the broader scientific system. The discussion raises the question of whether GS academics still need to elaborate epistemological contributions to the field consistently. Considering that GS is not directly sheltered under a single field, this makes it more difficult to position it within the broad map of science and gain visibility. Without such an internal reflection, it is argued that GS will still not be recognized as a field in thematic categories, not just in bibliographic databases or library catalogues but also in the general system of science and related supranational classifications.