1,720,976 research outputs found
'Aspirational voters' and the 2004 federal election
No full textDuring the 2004 election campaign, a consensus emerged that \u27aspirational\u27 voters would play a crucial role in determining the election outcome, especially in outer metropolitan electorates, where the Howard government held eleven seats by a margin of less than six per cent. Did they? Haydon Manning looks at the evidence
The South Australian election: implications for democracy in the festival state
No full textGeoff Anderson and Haydon Manning review the election and analyse the Rann government’s commitment to abolishing the upper house and inclusion of non-Labor members in Cabinet. They also examine South Australia’s unique electoral redistribution formula
In defence of cartoonists' licence to mock
No full textShould cartoonists restrain their satirical instincts to protect public confidence in politicians, parties, and democratic institutions? Or are their \u27little incendiary bombs\u27 a crucial form of political communication? Haydon Manning and Robert Phiddian argue that cartoonists should have free \u27licence to mock\u27.
Also available: a response to this paper by Michael Hogan, who encourages cartoonists to think about their craft and not to take a \u27licence to mock\u27 to be a licence to abuse
Why Labor won the 1993 federal election: an unconventional view. by Haydon Manning
No full texttag=1 data=Why Labor won the 1993 federal election: an unconventional view. by Haydon Manning
tag=2 data=Manning, Haydon
tag=3 data=Policy Organisation and Society,
tag=5 data=7
tag=6 data=Summer 1993
tag=7 data=10-16.
tag=8 data=ELECTIONS-FEDERAL%POLITICAL PARTIES-ALP
tag=10 data=Labor's victory has, in many respects, confounded more than the Canberra press gallery.
tag=11 data=1994/6/1
tag=12 data=94/0025
tag=13 data=CABLabor's victory has, in many respects, confounded more than the Canberra press gallery
A boring campaign?
No full textOnly according to the Advertiser, write Geoff Anderson and Haydon Manning
“SOUTH Australians might as well not bother casting a vote on March 18 unless something changes quickly”. Why? Because the campaign “is barely causing a ripple”. That’s the view of Adelaide’s daily paper, the Advertiser, which appears to have decided that Labor’s big lead in the polls means that the campaign is simply boring. The paper bemoans the fact that most voters appear to made up their minds already and, consequently, “there seems little point in wasting time and money with an election”. It is unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising, to find such jaundiced view among journalists who view politics as a game where “king-hits”, rhetoric and stunts are all that matter. We take a far less cynical view and believe there is much of interest in this state election, but it does not solely reside with the contest between Rann and Kerin.
For anyone with an abiding interest in politics the tight contest between Family First, No Pokies independent Nick Xenophon, the Greens and the Democrats for the last two, or three, remaining Upper House seats holds promise of considerable excitement. Moreover, contests for the seats of Hammond, Stuart, Kavel, Finnis and Bright immediately come to mind as truly interesting contests. Next week we will look at these seats and how the Upper House contest may pan out. In the meantime the parties strain to catch the attention of the voters.
Labor’s campaign
All incumbent governments, even first term ones, face the difficulty that familiarity may well breed electoral contempt at election time. In an age of relatively transparent budgeting, and external scrutiny by rating agencies, it’s harder to pull expensive rabbits out hats. Mike Rann, having been part of previous Labor governments in the late 1980s that suffered just such a fate, is determined that it will not happen to him. His response in the first week of the campaign has been an extraordinary energy, a deluge of advertising, and a hard-edged, even brutal attack on opposition leader Rob Kerin.
If the election is going to be decided by the sheer weight of announcements then the week has belonged to Labor, with their website showing twenty announcements over a five day period compared to the seven posted on the Liberal Party site. The pattern is familiar. The announcements associated with the premier are positive, “bold” (a word frequently used), about “getting results” (the campaign theme) and seeded with modest expenditure that is always beefed up by being “over four years”. The deputy premier Kevin Foley and senior minister Pat Conlon, on the other hand, have settled into attack dog roles. Conlon even tried to raise the old bogey of power privatisation to berate the Liberals and “scare” voters. This is curious given that the privatisation scare tactic occupied centre stage in Labor’s 2002 campaign but the party only managed a paltry 0.7 primary vote swing. Undeterred, health minister John Hill ran with an assertion that if the Liberals win one of Adelaide’s major hospitals will be up for sale.
These multi-daily announcements are supported by a very professional TV campaign that blends images of the premier with all of the recent good news and big project announcements - warships, the expansion of Olympic Dam, growing employment - crossing to near subliminal views of newspaper headlines reminding viewers of Labor’s populist triumphs: offenders who “got off lightly” the first time sent to prison, the nuclear waste dump stopped. There is no explanation as to how that particular “result” is consistent with the “result” of building the world’s biggest uranium mine.
But it is the other thrust of Labor’s TV campaign that shows how determined they are that nothing will not be taken for granted, including a large lead in the opinion polls. Newspoll reported on 1 March that Labor’s healthy lead (44 to 37 primary vote and 54 to 46 two-party preferred) is intact. Although “attack” advertisements are the staple of political campaigning in the United States, Australian parties have been less comfortable with the format, although the “Latham Learner” campaign in the 2004 election suggested that this is changing. It’s hard to find anyone who likes them, but it’s also hard to find anyone who doesn’t see one without getting the message. Labor’s message in the version they have unleashed in the first week of the campaign is brutal, even cruel, using footage of a bumbling interview by Rob Kerin after he warded off a challenge last year when he appeared to have trouble explaining why he wanted to be Premier. Predictably, the Liberals have responded with claims of “gutter politics” and the usual sporting clich©s about “playing the man not the ball”. But the message is clear, Rob Kerin may be a nice bloke, but is he up to the job?
The Liberal campaign
The kindest thing one may say is, wait, it has’t begun in earnest yet. Wait until the official launch on 12 March for higher profile advertising and, perhaps, a string of key policy announcements aimed at shoring up the rusted-on Liberal vote and holding a reasonable proportion of those who rarely vote Labor. The state Liberals simply do not have the cash to spend, and unless the federal party suddenly feels generous this is unlikely to change. Expect a mini advertising blitz later in the campaign, though; it will be interesting to see what angle it takes.
At this juncture Rob Kerin quietly campaigns on the three principles he enunciated some weeks ago at his “mini-launch”, namely “honesty, the economy and making sure the services people want are there when they need them”. The problem for Kerin may lie with the fact that during the last week of the campaign the Commonwealth Games will be in full swing and, unlike in 1997 when Labor made late headway on a shoestring budget, that background noise may simply stop any late advertising making an impact.
For the Liberal campaign strategists it has not been easy to find meaningful policy differentiation from Rann’s “centre-right coalition” government. Trying to forge a point of difference, Kerin’s shadow treasurer, Rob Lucas, announced he’d cut the public sector by 4000 jobs - mainly via non-renewal of contracts and voluntary redundancy packages - but added that a Liberal government would guarantee no job cuts to police, schools and hospitals.
Unwittingly perhaps, the prime minister, during a brief visit, undermined Kerin’s claim that Rann was wasting economic opportunities. John Howard acknowledged the strength of the SA economy and the media trumpeted this as a blow to Kerin - he really cannot win a trick at the moment. It’s interesting to ponder why incumbent leaders tend to support to each other, even across the party divide.
Among other Liberal promises and significant points of differentiation we find a plan to cut land tax, spend an additional 8m to help food producers. They’ve rejected Labor’s proposed tramway extension but of greater substance is their opposition to Labor’s plans for improving suburban North-South traffic flow. Rather than a series of tunnels under major intersections Kerin favours a plan akin to the late 1960s MATS project, namely a North-South freeway.
Don Dunstan’s ghost
Christian Kerr of crikey.com.au reports on a marvellous limerick penned by Democrat candidate, David Winderlich, and a clever piece of campaigning by the Democrats.
Tis said Dunstan’s ghost has been seen
Sporting Democrat yellow and green.
It got up Mike’s nose,
But his leadership shows
Labor builds with our fears not our dreams
The story behind the limerick began when the Democrats Upper House candidate, Kate Reynolds, in league with the party\u27s candidate for the seat of Norwood, David Winderlich, paid a visit to the Labor incumbent, Vinni Ciccarello’s office. Norwood was held for many years by Don Dunstan and it’s unclear whether they thought their little stunt would be greeted with a laughter or a stern rebuke. But when Winderlich appeared in safari suit, the garment made famous, or infamous, by Don Dunstan, they were asking for trouble. Cheekily they placed a poster outside Ciccarello’s office that read "Think Dunstan - vote Democrat" and Reynolds announced, adjacent Dunstan’s memorial plaque, that Dunstan "would not vote Labor" if he were alive today.
Later in the day, the premier, who worked as Dunstan’s press secretary, grumpily dismissed this as a “bizarre stunt” that "corrupted" the Dunstan legacy. He said the idea is “offensive to his mentor\u27s memory”, which raises the obvious question: well, is it? Who said the election campaign was dull and boring when taxing questions of this sort are posed? •
Geoff Anderson and Haydon Manning teach in the School of Political Studies at Flinders University
JOSTLING IN A NETHER WORLD, Geoff Anderson and Haydon Manning’s first South Australian election report for APO >>
Jostling in a nether world
No full textThe campaign has finally begun. Geoff Anderson and Haydon Manning report on the opening salvos
SOUTH AUSTRALIANS will vote in the state’s first fixed term election on 18 March. Although the date has been known for over four years, that didn’t stop the usual speculation over timing, with the media wanting to know precisely when the writs would be issued and the Liberal opposition jostling to take advantage of the hiatus. The result was a nether world of quasi-campaigning stretching back to mid January. The clamour only ceased when Mike Rann - the nation’s most popular premier, according to Newspoll - visited Government House on 20 February to seek the dissolution of parliament and the issuing of writs for the 47 seats in the House of Assembly and half of the 22 seats in the Legislative Council
It’s been a particularly strange few weeks. Liberal leader, Rob Kerin, chose to launch his party’s campaign a fortnight ago, believing this would somehow get the jump on his opponents. The Advertiser, South Australia’s only daily newspaper, was clearly anxious to see the excitement of the campaign begin, and entered the fray with an editorial accusing the premier of being “a man of talk, not action” who was force-feeding the state with populist and media driven politics. The following day’s editorial issued an “invitation” to the premier to join Rob Kerin in a public debate (a feature of South Australian campaigning three decades ago) where questions would be taken from the floor. According to the paper, “Mr Rann is not prepared to shed his slick political skin to participate in democracy in the raw.” Despite denials from the Advertiser that it had decided to campaign against the government and an assessment by the editor that both major parties were “particularly pathetic”, it’s hard to avoid the impression that the paper believes the government is a bit too far ahead.
The first two days of the campaign have provided some evidence that this is indeed the case, with little doubt that (so far) the Advertiser is Rob Kerin’s best friend. When the premier announced his campaign theme against the backdrop of the statue of Adelaide’s designer, Colonel Light, on a hill known as “Light’s Vision”, the headline was “Rann’s Light Vision” and the editorial demanded, in terms more reminiscent of a day-night cricket match, “C’mon Premier, show us your ideas”.
There is every indication that the trend towards presidential campaigning in Australian elections, state and federal, will be maintained if not taken to new heights by Labor. Day one saw its slogan revealed as “Rann Gets Results” under a photo of the premier that owed more to West Wing than the State Administration Centre.
Labor currently holds only 22 seats in the 47 seat House of Assembly and governs in coalition with South Australia’s only National Party MP and an independent Liberal, both of whom are members of cabinet, with the support of two other Liberal independents, the present and the former Speaker. To feel comfortable as a majority government Labor needs to win at least two additional seats.
For the Liberals the task is much harder - perhaps even impossible if the majority of the four centre-right independents are reelected, as they cannot be counted on to support the formation of a Liberal government. Of the four, Peter Lewis, the member for the rural seat of Hammond who put Labor into government in return for the Speaker’s chair, is almost certain to lose his seat. He has already lost the speakership after failing to substantiate allegations of paedophilia against a government minister and a former senior Liberal member. Recent polls suggest that fellow independent Rory McEwen, the Member for Mt Gambier in the state’s southeast who sits in Rann’s cabinet, could be in for a fight. It also appears that the vote may be close in Karlene Maywald’s National Party seat of Chaffey in the Riverland. Both are seats that the Liberals believe they can win back. During the phoney campaign, Maywald received the support of Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce. Although this generated publicity it also highlighted her anomalous position inside a Labor cabinet and forced her to commit to supporting “a conservative government first and foremost” if the election resulted in the Nationals holding the balance of power. The last of the independents is Bob Such, Member for Fisher in the city’s south and the current Speaker, who appears assured of holding his seat.
Labor also looks likely to make gains in the Legislative Council, particularly if the high primary vote suggested by recent polls holds up. But it will not win control of the council, for even if the Liberals suffered a catastrophic reversal Labor does not have enough candidates on its ticket to deliver a majority in the chamber. The real interest in the Legislative Council will be whether the Democrats’ demise federally has infected their homeland state or whether Natasha Stott Despoja’s profile can be translated into local votes. As two of their three council seats are up for grabs they are likely to lose influence whatever the result. The high profile No Pokies member of the council, Nick Xenophon, the darling of the media, may find that preference deals by the major parties leave him stranded. Family First, whose success in winning a seat in the council in the 2002 election was something of a forerunner of the impact it made in the 2004 federal election, is running a strong campaign aided by a presence in all of the lower house contests. If we include the Greens then there are four high profile candidates or minor parties fighting for probably a maximum of two seats. We shall know more when nominations close and the major parties determine their preferences.
At this juncture the polls are unanimous in predicting that that government will be returned in a ‘Rannslide’. We are more cautious but nevertheless believe that Labor will win with a comfortable majority of four to five seats. •
Geoff Anderson and Haydon Manning teach in the School of Political Studies at Flinders University
For more detail on individual electorates see Poll Bludger’s South Australian Pendulum and the Antony Green’s analysis on the ABC state election website
Family First's unprecedented campaign
No full textAn effective national debut won’t necessarily counter the doubts raised by the party’s origins and backers, writes Haydon Manning in this profile of Family First for APO IT’S not often that a minor party gains national attention so quickly. With no presence in the federal parliament, and one MP in a state chamber, the Family First Party (FFP) occupies print and media space far beyond what is normally associated with a party still in its infancy. But the focus is warranted. Clever preference deals negotiated with Labor in Tasmania and Victoria give FFP some hope in those states, and it even has a chance in NSW, where a plethora of minor and micro parties could deliver to the party that elusive sixth Senate position. Among minor parties, their expenditure on television advertising has no precedent and featured, during the campaign’s penultimate weekend, high profile Brisbane Lions footballer, Shaun Hart, urging a vote for FFP. Despite all that, as the campaign draws to a close, it’s my view that voters keen to register a protest vote against the major parties - and that’s the main source of support for most minor parties - may well shy away from a party that appears to have a close association with the Assemblies of God and some rather shadowy financial backers. Where the money’s coming from, how they’re structured and select candidates, and what they would do in parliament, is the subject of this article. Understandably, much of the media focus is on how Pentecostal adherents could form such a well-organised and, in light of the clever Senate preference deals, pragmatic party. But as the campaign enters its last week FFP officials and candidates are caught in a self-inflicted dilemma: they continue to reject any suggestion that FFP is based on the evangelical Assemblies of God churches, yet it’s likely those churches will provide many of the footsoldiers essential to the party’s campaign. Candidates have struggled over the last week to convince journalists and radio talk back hosts that church and party are totally separate entities. In some respects this shouldn’t matter because it’s not uncommon for parties to have links to societal groups. But we are an avowedly secular society and I’d argue voters are very wary of electing, to the national parliament, representatives of a party which, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to be based on Christian fundamentalist doctrine. Recognising this problem FFP has become very defensive and attacks journalists for making ‘shameful’ references to the party’s links with Assemblies of God. Christian crusaders, such as Fred Nile, are occasionally elected to state parliaments, and during the 1950s and 1960s the Democratic Labor Party, a party constituted by Catholics, won Senate seats and advantaged the Liberals via its delivery of healthy preference allocations. But a party so demonstrably based on Assemblies of God congregations is beginning to flounder due to the intensity of media scrutiny one expects during a national election campaign. Keen to promote an image that they are simply a party for families, and nothing more, the message went awry when FFP leader, Andrea Mason, appeared less than forthright during an interview on 28 September with Sydney icon radio talkback host, John Laws. He asked about the background of FFP’s NSW candidates and found Mason unaware, or possibly, unwilling to elaborate. The influential host concluded with the observation, ‘The religious right have every right to get into politics - but not by deception’. There is every reason to expect that the majority of candidates and party officials are members of Assemblies of God congregations. FFP is a conservative party with a rather nuanced view of the role of government. Its polices opposing same sex marriage, abortion, stem cell research and decriminalisation of marijuana are well known. Less understood is its view of government and economic policy, a problem stemming from the generality of its twenty-page policy document. In my correspondence with Andrea Mason it was interesting to discover the location of FFP’s view of government within the voguish European Union idea of ‘subsidiarity’. While subsidiarity has its genesis in Catholic social thought it is also part of the ‘third way’ lexicon which, of course, is favoured in many respects by the Labor leader, Mark Latham. In brief, subsidiarity argues for smaller government, as David Bosnich explains in relation to its advocacy within Catholic social thought: “This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organisation. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralised entity should be It conflicts with the passion for centralisation and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.” (‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’, Religion and Society, Vol. 6. No. 4, 1996) Family First states that ‘like most economists’ they’d ‘support a careful analytical watch on the size of government’. They desire greater devolution of power to local communities, particularly as this relates to protecting family welfare, and supporting networks of counselling for families faced with the stress of poverty, parental breakup and drug addiction. FFP supports a major review of the tax system, calls for raising the tax-free threshold to a level more able to reflect basic family living expenses and wants all policy before Cabinet assessed under the rubric of a ‘Family Impact Statement’. Andrea Mason is the first Aborigine to lead a political party, and she told me FFP should seek an apology from the Commonwealth for the injustices and dispossession of indigenous peoples. She locates herself close to Noel Pearson’s position and, while this is not necessarily hostile to aspects of the Howard government’s approach, the impression is one of dissatisfaction with the Coalition parties on indigenous matters. While FFP’s policy package lacks specifics, I believe it is too simple to conclude they are merely a political clone of the Coalition parties. At least in the case of Mason, with her a background working in community housing and obvious concern for indigenous welfare issues, a different outlook from that of the Coalition parties is evident. The question of how FFP determined its candidates and negotiated preferences is revealing. I’m informed that prospective candidates were vetted via scrutiny of their CVs and referees by the National Executive (more on this body in a moment). To determine preference allocations in the lower house all Coalition and Labor candidates were, apparently, sent a questionnaire aimed at soliciting their views on social and ethical questions - oddly, my request for a copy of the survey was declined, and no reason given. Labor candidates, it appears, refused to cooperate, possibly knowing the odds were stacked against them ‘passing’. The Coalition is favoured in all seats 109 seats in which FFP is fielding candidates. The reason for not supporting Labor candidates, even those with impeccable Christian credentials, is the Labor Party’s tradition of refusing its MPs the right to vote with their conscience - which fails to recognise that, in practice, the Coalition parties rarely offer this to their MPs. Nevertheless, their decision to preference the Coalition parties was as most pundits expected and the whole matter of the surveying of candidates appears to be a cover for decisions that had already been made. In many respects FFP would warm the soul of any Machiavellian. They shied away from preferencing the Liberal candidate for Brisbane due, one may reasonably assume, to her being a lesbian. But this did not deter FFP preferencing the Democrats’ homosexual Western Australian senator ahead of the Liberals. When it really matters, calculations of electoral advantage seem to hold sway over fundamentalist Biblical interpretation. THE EMERGENCE of FFP in South Australia during the 2002 campaign and the election of Andrew Evans to the upper house caught all parties and observers by surprise. With plenty of money, Evans ran a well-organised campaign that included television advertisements and, most significantly, plenty of foot soldiers at the polling booths. He won some 35,000 primary votes (4 per cent) and, with preference allocations, took the final Legislative Council seat just ahead of the Greens. A retired Assemblies of God pastor, Evans explained to me he wanted to do more for the poor and for social justice. Unsure of the best course to take, he sought involvement with prominent local independent MP, Nick Xenophon, and his “No Pokies” upper house ticket. Xenophon staunchly defends his status as an independent and saw no reason to share his platform with Evans. South Australia is FFP’s organisational base and, at this stage, the only branch with a ‘Board of Reference’. The board is multi-denominational, a point Evans and party chairman, Peter Harris, are keen to stress. But they are less willing to advertise the makeup of the National Executive, the body charged with determining candidates. Six of its seven members are current, or former pastors, or officials of the Assemblies of God. In a secular society this is, arguably, FFP’s Achilles heel, and journalists have honed in on the question of separation between church and party. As ABC religious affairs announcer, Toni Hassan, observed in an interview with Andrew Evans ‘You walk like a duck, you talk like a duck, but are you a duck?’ Scrutiny of FFP’s bona fides has elicited increasingly shrill responses, with Queensland Senate candidate, John Lewis, claiming it was slanderous to suggest the party was a ‘Christian Party’. Ironically, the Greens claim they’ve been defamed by FFP television advertisements that seek to paint them as untrustworthy ‘extremists’. Where’s the money coming from? How does an emerging small party afford such unprecedented expenditure on television advertisements, much of it during prime time rating events such as the AFL Grand Final? I’m informed FFP has some 2000 members who pay $20 per membership, engage in fundraising and make small donations. But the real interest is in the large donations of ‘business people’ who bankroll the advertising campaign. Alas, we’ll probably never know who they are because the money is channelled through ‘foundations’, which raises the obvious question - do these foundations disguise donations from Pentecostal churches, or linked benefactors, in Australia, or even the United States? We’ll probably never know, but questions will persist, especially should FFP succeed in winning some Senate seats. A WEEK out from polling day, what are FFP’s chances? Five weeks ago, and recalling their presence during the last South Australian poll, I suspected that should they direct preferences to the Liberal Party in the northern suburban Adelaide seat of Makin, located adjacent a large Assemblies of God congregation, then Labor’s hopes of winning this key marginal would diminish. Early in the campaign it appeared that FFP would follow the principle of assessing preference decisions on whether or not candidates met certain moral/ethical criteria. It transpired that in Makin they chose to support the Liberal sitting member, Trish Draper, who earlier in the year was exposed for travelling abroad with a male friend at taxpayers’ expense, rather than the Labor candidate who is a devout Christian. In the Senate, it is clear that as well as hoping to win places they are just as keen to block the Greens. Notwithstanding their relatively lavish campaign expenditure and, in all likelihood, strong presence at polling booths, they now appear shadowy, a little harried and intolerant of diversity of opinion. Ultimately, FFP’s claim to be somehow a ‘single issue party’, solely concerned with auditing policy as it relates to family welfare, seems less than the whole story. For those wishing to register a protest vote FFP offers an option, but given our secular society, and its antennae for the fanatic and the dogmatist, I fancy it’s fast becoming a non-option for many voters. It is perhaps sobering to be reminded just how unlike America we are when it comes to church going. The Australian Election Study 2001 found that only 14 per cent of respondents attend church once a week - and the bulk of these are mainstream Protestants and Catholics. While some 70 per percent of Australians responding to this study say they are Christians, we are not a particularly religious society, and I’d reckon FFP’s ‘true believers’ - voters who’ve read FFP policy and/or know personally a candidate or friend thereof - make up not much more than 2 or 3 per cent of the electorate, if that. Like all minor parties FFP depends on attracting the ‘protest vote’ but now that there is a whiff of smoke and mirrors surrounding FFP’s religious connection then, for mine, their chances diminish with each day of campaigning. • Haydon Manning is senior lecturer in the School of Political and International Studies at Flinders University in Adelaide. He teaches and publishes on political parties, electoral behaviour and political humour. This analysis is based on interviews and correspondence with FFP candidates and officials, scrutiny of their policies, parliamentary speeches and press releases
Hanging and clinging: two state elections
No full textPeter Mares spoke to journalist Sue Neales and political scientist Haydon Manning about the likely shakedown in Tasmania and South Australia
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
