Current status and trends in research on the concept of Anthropocene ——a CiteSpace-based bibliometric analysis
Abstract
To conduct a visual metric analysis of the literature on the Anthropocene concept in Web of Science in the past 15 years, and collect a total of 504 academic papers, with a focus on Arts and Humanities Citation Index. This study analyzes the status and dynamic changes of the research in this field in terms of the number of publications, co-authors, collaborating institutions, cutting-edge developments, research hotspots, and research trends, to provide operational theoretical basis and practical guidance for the subsequent research on this concept. CiteSpace was used to visualize and analyze the literature on the concept of the Anthropocene in the past 15 years, and systematically analyze the status, institutions, hotspots and trends of the research on this concept. We analyzed the co-citations of the literature to identify the most influential publications in the research of the Anthropocene concept. Analysis of the evolution of research hotspots to identify the research trends of the concept at different stages and to explore deeper research hotspots.
References
[1] Butzer, Karl. (2015). Anthropocene as an evolving paradigm. The Holocene, 25(10), 1539-1541.
[2] Braidotti, Rosi. (2019). A theoretical framework for the critical posthumanities. Theory, culture & society, 36(6), 31-61.
[3] Chen, Chaomei. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377.
[4] Chakrabarty, Dipesh. (2018). Anthropocene time. History and Theory, 57(1), 5-32.
[5] Certini, Giacomo, and Riccardo Scalenghe. 2011. Anthropogenic soils are the golden spikes for the Anthropocene. The Holocene,
21(8), 1269–1274.
[6] Clark, Nigel, and Kathryn Yusoff. (2017). Geosocial formations and the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(2-3), 3–23.
[7] Eckersley, Robyn. (2017). Geopolitan democracy in the Anthropocene. Political Studies, 65(4), 983–999.
[8] Haraway, Donna. (2015). Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental humanities, 6(1),
159–165.
[9] Hecht, Gabrielle. (2018). Interscalar vehicles for an African Anthropocene: On waste, temporality, and violence. Cultural Anthropology, 33(1), 109–141.
[10] Hamilton, Scott. (2018). The measure of all things? The Anthropocene as a global biopolitics of carbon. European Journal of International Relations, 24(1), 33–57.
[11] Kearnes, Matthew, and Lauren Rickards. (2017). Earthly graves for environmental futures: Techno-burial practices. Futures, 92,
48–58.
[12] Kalonaityte, Viktorija. (2018). When rivers go to court: The Anthropocene in organization studies through the lens of Jacques
Rancière. Organization, 25(4), 517–532.
[13] Lorimer, Jamie. (2017). Probiotic environmentalities: Rewilding with wolves and worms. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(4), 27–
48.
[14] Malm, Andreas. (2013). The origins of fossil capital: From water to steam in the British cotton industry. Historical Materialism,
21(1), 15–68.
[15] Malm, Andreas, and Alf Hornborg. (2014). The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The anthropocene
review, 1(1), 62–69.
[16] Simon, Zoltán Boldizsár. (2020). The limits of Anthropocene narratives. European Journal of Social Theory, 23(2), 184–199.
[17] Steffen Will, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, and Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The anthropocene review, 2(1), 81–98.
[18] Vaughn, Sarah E. (2022). Erosion by design: Rethinking innovation, sea defense, and credibility in Guyana. Comparative Studies
in Society and History, 64(4), 849–877.
