Mapping Human–Animal Interaction Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis

References

• Aaltola, E. (2011). The philosophy behind the movement: Animal studies versus animal rights. Society & Animals, 19(4), 393–406. DOI: 10.1163/156853011X590042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, C. (1991). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• An, X., & Wu, Q. (2011). Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting. Scientometrics, 88(1), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0374-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreatta, M. M. (2016). Veganismo, etnografía performativa y estudios críticos animales; Instituto Latinoamericano de Estudios Críticos Animales. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Críticos Animales, 5, 35–52.
   Google Scholar
• Andrzejeweski, J. (2003). Teaching animal rights at the university: Philosophy and practice. Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, 1(1), 14–32.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong, P. (2002). The postcolonial animal. Society & Animals, 10(4), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoös, 6(4), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279393787002105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascione, F. R., McCabe, M. S., Phillips, A., & Tedeshi, P. (2010). Animal abuse and developmental psychopathology: Recent research, programmatic and therapeutic issues and challenges for the future. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for practice (3rd ed., pp. 357–394). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01614.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Health, J., Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balcarce, G. (2020). Animales, humanos o no: Hacia un pensamiento posthumano deconstructivo. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Críticos Animales, 7(1), 36–47.
   Google Scholar
• Barona, E., & Carrió, E. (2016). The need of education in respect for animals (ERA) as a subject of the social education degree at the university: An overview focused on Spain. Journal of Social Science Education, 15(3), 40–46. DOI: 10.2390/jsse-v15-i3-1304
   Google Scholar
• Beirne, P., & South, N. (eds.). (2013). Issues in green criminology. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Best, S. (2009). The rise of critical animal studies: Putting theory into action and animal liberation into higher education. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 7(1), 9–52.
   Google Scholar
• Birke, L. (2002). Intimate familiarities? Feminism and human–animal studies. Society & Animals, 10(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936917
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birke, L., Bryld, M., & Lykke, N. (2004). Animal performances: An exploration of intersections between feminist science studies and studies of human/animal relationships. Feminist Theory, 5(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104045406
   Google Scholar
• Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., & Kleiven, J. (2003). Attitudes and activities related to urban wildlife: Pet owners and non-owners. Anthrozoös, 16(3), 252–262. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bovenkerk, B., & Keulartz, J. (2021). Animals in our midst: The challenges of co-existing with animals in the Anthropocene. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10), 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69104167x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, C. D. (1979). The zoological connection: Animal-related human behavior. Social Forces, 58(2), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callon, M., Rip, A., & Law, J. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Campos, O. (2011). ¿Daña la muerte a los animales? El análisis privacionista y la plausibidad de una gradación no especieísta del valor de las vidas. Universidad de Granada.
   Google Scholar
• Castricano, J. (ed.). (2008). Animal subjects: An ethical reader in a posthuman world (Vol. 8). Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry, 85(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Lessio-Parson, A. (2017). Doing vegetarianism to destabilize the meat-masculinity nexus in La Plata, Argentina. Gender, Place and Culture, 24(12), 1729–1748. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1395822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and society: An introduction to human–animal studies. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Derrida, J. (2008). The animal that therefore I am. Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dilworth, T., & McGregor, A. (2015). Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9522-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• do Carmo, ÍN. (2019). Feminist and vegan: Gastropolitics and conventions of gender, sexuality and species among young feminists. Revista Estudos Feministas, 27(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9584-2019v27n144021
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., & Adams, C. J. (eds.). (1995). Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., & Adams, C. J. (eds.). (2007). The feminist care tradition in animal ethics: A reader. Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feng, Y., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2017). Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, L. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543
   Google Scholar
• Gaard, G. (1993). Living interconnections with animals and nature. In G. Gaard (Ed.). Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 1–12). Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaard, G. (2015). Ecofeminism and climate change. Women's Studies International Forum, 49, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenebaum, J. (2012). Veganism, identity and the quest for authenticity. Food, Culture and Society, 15(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174412X13190510222101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, L., & Taylor, N. (2017). Introduction: An ecology of ethnographic methods. In L. Hamilton & N. Taylor (Eds.), Ethnography after humanism: Power, politics and method in multi-species research (pp. 1–19). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48, 133–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, K., & Moody, J. (2014). Data visualization in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 40(1), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145551
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horta, O. (2017). Distintos principios, consecuencias enfrentadas: La oposición entre la consideración moral de los animales y el ecologismo. Euphyía, 11(20), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.33064/20euph1358
   Google Scholar
• Huggan, G., & Tiffin, H. (2015). Postcolonial ecocriticism: Literature, animals, environment. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hurn, S. (2008). What's love got to do with it? The interplay of sex and gender in the commercial breeding of Welsh cobs. Society & Animals, 16(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X269872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurn, S. (2010). What's in a name? Anthrozoology, human–animal studies, animal studies or … ? Anthropology Today, 26(3), 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2010.00739.x
   Google Scholar
• Hurn, S. (2021, December 3–4). What is symbiotic ethics? Why does it matter? Reframing anthrozoology as symbiotic ethics – Online conference. Exeter, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Irvine, L. (2012). Sociology and anthrozoology: Symbolic interactionist contributions. Anthrozoös, 25(1), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13353430377174
   Google Scholar
• Kellert, S. R., & Felthous, A. R. (1985). Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and non-criminals. Human Relations, 38(12), 1113–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503801202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös, 17(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laestadius, L. I. (2015). Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9573-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloro-Bidart, T. (2018). A feminist posthumanist multispecies ethnography for educational studies. Educational Studies, 54(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1413370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden, R. (2014). Animals and the limits of ethnography. Anthrozoös, 27(2), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827487683
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marvin, G., & McHugh, S. (2014). In it together. An introduction to human–animal studies. In G. Marvin & S. McHugh (Eds.), Routledge handbook of human–animal studies (pp. 1–9). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McFarland, S. E., & Hediger, R. (2009). Approaching the agency of other animals: An introduction. In S. McFarland & R. Hediger (Eds.), Animals and agency: An interdisciplinary exploration (pp. 1–20). Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, D. S., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2010). Anthrozoology. In D. S. Mills & J. N. Marchant-Forde (Eds.), The encyclopedia of applied animal behaviour and welfare (pp. 28–30). CABI.
   Google Scholar
• Mycek, M. K. (2018). Meatless meals and masculinity: How veg* men explain their plant-based diets. Food and Foodways, 26(3), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2017.1420355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, G. (2002). Symbolic animals and the developing self. Anthrozoös, 15(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279302786992766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieradzik, L. (2017). The animal as a perspective for cultural analysis: On the mutual benefit of European ethnology and human–animal studies. Journal for European Ethnology and Cultural Analysis, 3(1), 52–68.
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley, J. (2012). The parallel lives of women and cows: Meat markets. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H. (2011). Release the moths: Critical animal studies and the posthumanist impulse. Culture, Theory and Critique, 52(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2011.621663
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, H., & Stanescu, V. (2014). Future directions of critical animal studies. In N. Taylor & R. Twine (Eds.), The rise of critical animal studies: From the margins to the center (pp. 262–275). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. Journal of Informetrics, 10(4), 1178–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (2000). Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human–animal relations. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Regan, T. (1983). Animal rights, human wrongs. In H. B. Miller & W. H. Williams (Eds.), Ethics and animals (pp. 19–43). Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5623-6_2
   Google Scholar
• Rivera, J. J. (2019). Non-humans in Amerindian South America. Ethnographies, cosmologies, rituals and songs. Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, N. (2012). Social zooarchaeology: Humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanbonmatsu, J. (2011). Critical theory and animal liberation. Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segerdahl, P. (2011). Interventions in anthropocentrism. In P. Segerdahl (Ed.), Undisciplined animals: Invitations to animal studies (pp. 1–8). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, K. (2020). Human–animal studies: Remembering the past, celebrating the present, troubling the future. Society & Animals, 5(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00187
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, K., & DeMello, M. (2010). The state of the human–animal studies. Society & Animals, 18(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853010X524352
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, K., & Lynn, W. S. (2019). Editors’ note: Announcing new section in society & animals – “political animals: Ethics, policy, and practice. Society & Animals, 27(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for the treatment of animals. New York Review.
   Google Scholar
• Svärd, P. (2008). Protecting the animals? An abolitionist critique of animal welfarism and green speciesism. In R. Sollund (Ed.), Global harms: Ecological crime and speciesism. Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Svärd, P. (2011). Beyond welfarist morality: An abolitionist reply to Fetissenko. Journal of Animal Ethics, 1(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0176
   Google Scholar
• Svartberg, K., & Forkman, B. (2002). Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00121-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swabe, J. (ed.). (2001). Interviews with James Serpell and Hal Herzog on their careers, research and visions of the human–animal relationship. ISAZ Newsletter. http://isaz.net/newsletter/isaz22.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, K. D., & Mills, D. S. (2006). The development and assessment of temperament tests for adult companion dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 1(3), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2006.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, N., & Twine, R. (2014). The rise of critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ticktin, M. I. (2015). Non-human suffering: A humanitarian project. In I. Harper, T. Kelly, & A. Khanna (Eds.), The clinic and the court: Law, medicine and anthropology (pp. 49–71). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ticktin, M. I. (2019). From the human to the planetary. Medicine Anthropology Theory, 6(3), 133–160. https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.6.3.666
   Google Scholar
• Twine, R. (2010). Intersectional disgust? Animals and (eco) feminism. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353510368284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbanik, J. (2012). Placing animals: An introduction to the geography of human–animal relations. Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Valles, A. (2019). Feminismo, Alimentación, Respeto Animal y Medio Ambiente: Una breve aproximación al ecofeminismo vegetariano antiespecista. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Críticos Animales, 6(1), 83–100.
   Google Scholar
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Videla, M. D., & Olarte, M. A. (2019). Gender differences in diverse dimensions of the human–canine bond: A descriptive study in the autonomous city of Buenos Aires. Revista Colombiana de Psicología, 28(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v28n2.72891
   Google Scholar
• VOSviewer: Visualizing scientific landscapes. (2020). Retrieved August 27, 2020, from http://www.vosviewer.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Yatcilla, J. K. (2021). A panorama of human–animal interactions research: Bibliometric analysis of HAI articles 1982–2018. Anthrozoös, 34(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1885139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. doi:10.1177/1094428114562629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar