How to find a scientific revolution: intellectual field formation and the analysis of terms

Progress in scientific fields is usually thought to consist of formulating testable hypotheses and initiating paradigm shifts. Both of these views exclude the content of scientific fields that lead to milieu in which hypotheses and paradigms are formed. Therefore, it is proposed that a new view of scientific fields called coherence-based relevance be used to take into account the intellectual content of theories and how that can affect our view of both the history of science and the empirical world. The argument can be summarized by the argument that as scientific fields emerge, they are shaped by three forces: the historical contingency of the new field, the pattern of co-authorship and intellectual affinities within the field, and the salience of key references and citations within this social network. In this paper, the first two points will be tested with data (words from titles and abstracts) from selected journals and conference proceedings for four specific cases. When the same terms are used over time, it is indicative of stasis in terms of what is viewed as relevant in the field. A lack of similarity over time suggests a field in flux, at least in terms of relevant topics, theories, and methods. These results will be discussed, as well as the relationship between relevance, conceptual coherence, and changes in scientific practice over time.