Intellectual Structure and Dynamics of Novelty Within Philanthropic and Nonprofit Studies: A Computational and Structural Analysis

This dissertation examines scholarship within the emerging interdisciplinary field of philanthropic and nonprofit studies. The field has experienced significant shifts due to evolving societal and technological landscapes. To facilitate the effective and sustainable growth of the field, the study first seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of its intellectual structure using computational methods. To sort out the pattern and impact of novel research, the study then introduces a new typology of research novelty. Drawing upon network analytics, and theories of scientific discovery and innovation, four types of novelty are proposed, including Pioneer Novelty (introducing a new topic to the field, and the topic thereafter becoming central to the field), Periphery Novelty (introducing a new topic to the field, but the topic remains peripheral to the field), Shortener Novelty (reducing the connection distance between two topics that are previously disconnected or indirectly connected, and subsequently reshape the direction of the field evolution), and Strengthener Novelty (reinforcing the connection between two topics that are previously weakly connected, and subsequently change the centrality of the topics). The study identifies twenty knowledge clusters by analyzing a dataset of 60,399 articles gathered from the Web of Science database using a curated keyword list. The structure and scope of the clusters suggest that the field of philanthropic studies is changing from its interdisciplinary roots in social sciences and humanities to a broader spectrum, including social sciences, life science & biomedicine, arts & humanities, technology, and physical sciences. Further, analysis of novelty uncovers complexities in the relationship between research novelty and impact. Notably, Pioneer/Periphery Novelty is positively correlated with citation impact, while Shortener Novelty is negatively related and Strengthener Novelty shows varied relationships. These findings suggest the need to reevaluate the theoretical and methodological approaches that have been engaged in investigating the field, and the need for an evaluation framework that acknowledges and rewards various novel endeavors in advancing the progress of the field. In summary, by mapping the intellectual structure and analyzing the dynamics of novelty within philanthropic studies, the study enhances a ‘sense of intellectual continuity and coherence’ within and beyond the philanthropic studies community.