{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01871345029239766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.74496644295302, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using mixed methods to map vaguely defined research areas


 The aim of this article is to present an alternative method for science mapping, which remedies some of the classic limitations to e.g. using co-citation analysis as a mapping tool. With the emergence of new, more complex and interdisciplinary areas of research it becomes important to adjust our understandings of how to study these areas, and the argument of the present paper is that in order to provide high-resolution maps of emerging scientific areas, we need to start in the ‘cognitive colleges’ of the research areas themselves. To do so, a mixed methods design with co-nomination as its backbone is proposed. The potential and limitations of the alternative approach to science mapping are discussed based on an empirical example of mapping an vaguely defined research area in Denmark.