Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Workplace inclusion has gained prominence in autism–employment research, but it remains unclear whether it represents an extension of outcome-focused scholarship or a structurally distinct subdomain. We examined whether the two traditions can be consistently distinguished across bibliometric dimensions, and whether inclusion-oriented growth exceeds overall expansion of autism research output.</p> Methods <p>A comparative bibliometric study used two curated corpora retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (February 23, 2026): inclusion-oriented (INCL; <i>n</i> = 514) and outcome-oriented (OUT; <i>n</i> = 310), totaling 824 unique publications after deduplication. Structural differentiation was examined using document-level bibliographic coupling with Louvain community detection, complemented by modularity and cluster–corpus association tests. Author, journal, and keyword overlap were quantified using Jaccard indices. Annual counts were normalized against total ASD publication output in Scopus.</p> Results <p>The coupling network yielded 22 clusters (<i>Q</i> = 0.426). Cluster membership was strongly associated with corpus affiliation, χ²(21) = 105.87, <i>p</i> &lt; .001, Cramér’s <i>V</i> = 0.556. Author overlap was low (<i>J</i> = 0.057), journal overlap modest (<i>J</i> = 0.179), and keyword overlap moderate (<i>J</i> = 0.26). The inclusion-oriented share of ASD output grew approximately 4.1-fold from 2011 to 2015 to 2021–2025, against 1.6-fold for outcome-oriented research and 2.4-fold for the broader field.</p> Conclusion <p>Multiple bibliometric indicators consistently differentiate outcome-oriented and inclusion-oriented corpora, indicating distinct but conceptually adjacent strands of scholarship. Inclusion-oriented research has grown at a rate substantially exceeding overall field expansion. Findings provide hypothesis-generating evidence consistent with disciplinary diversification and highlight the need for integrative frameworks linking vocational rehabilitation and organizational inclusion research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Is Workplace Inclusion a Distinct Research Domain? A Comparative Bibliometric Study of Autism and Employment Literature

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月24日

查看全文
  • Kenneth Larsen,
  • Sambeet Mishra

摘要

Purpose

Workplace inclusion has gained prominence in autism–employment research, but it remains unclear whether it represents an extension of outcome-focused scholarship or a structurally distinct subdomain. We examined whether the two traditions can be consistently distinguished across bibliometric dimensions, and whether inclusion-oriented growth exceeds overall expansion of autism research output.

Methods

A comparative bibliometric study used two curated corpora retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science (February 23, 2026): inclusion-oriented (INCL; n = 514) and outcome-oriented (OUT; n = 310), totaling 824 unique publications after deduplication. Structural differentiation was examined using document-level bibliographic coupling with Louvain community detection, complemented by modularity and cluster–corpus association tests. Author, journal, and keyword overlap were quantified using Jaccard indices. Annual counts were normalized against total ASD publication output in Scopus.

Results

The coupling network yielded 22 clusters (Q = 0.426). Cluster membership was strongly associated with corpus affiliation, χ²(21) = 105.87, p < .001, Cramér’s V = 0.556. Author overlap was low (J = 0.057), journal overlap modest (J = 0.179), and keyword overlap moderate (J = 0.26). The inclusion-oriented share of ASD output grew approximately 4.1-fold from 2011 to 2015 to 2021–2025, against 1.6-fold for outcome-oriented research and 2.4-fold for the broader field.

Conclusion

Multiple bibliometric indicators consistently differentiate outcome-oriented and inclusion-oriented corpora, indicating distinct but conceptually adjacent strands of scholarship. Inclusion-oriented research has grown at a rate substantially exceeding overall field expansion. Findings provide hypothesis-generating evidence consistent with disciplinary diversification and highlight the need for integrative frameworks linking vocational rehabilitation and organizational inclusion research.