Scientometrics

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 877–892 | Cite as

Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach

Article

Abstract

Using a keyword mining approach, this paper explores the interdisciplinary and integrative dynamics in five nano research fields. We argue that the general trend of integration in nano research fields is converging in the long run, although the degree of this convergence depends greatly on the indicators one chooses. Our results show that nano technologies applied in the five studied nano fields become more diverse over time. One field learns more and more related technologies from others. The publication and citation analysis also proves that nano technology has developed to a relatively mature stage and has become a standardized and codified technology.

Keywords

Nanoscience and nanotechnology Interdisciplinarity Research fields Publication analysis Citation analysis Institutional cooperation Vocabulary mining Rough set theory 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 L52 L65 

References

  1. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (1997). Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In Edquist, C. (ed.) 1997 Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and Washington: Pinter/Cassell Academic, pp. 130-156Google Scholar
  4. Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2010). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Igami, M. & Saka, A. (2007). Capturing the evolving nature of science, the development of new scientific indicators and the mapping of science. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2007/1. Google Scholar
  7. van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loveridge, D., Dewick, P., & Randles, S. (2008). Converging technologies at the nanoscale: The making of a new world? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology—Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Newman, N., Huang, C., Notten, A., & Wang, L. (2009). Report on Benchmarking Global Nanotechnology Scientific Research, 1998–2007. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  11. Nicolau, D. (2004). Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology policies: An Australian perspective. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 1(4), 446–462.Google Scholar
  12. Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Information and Computer Sciences, 11(5), 341–356.Google Scholar
  13. Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roco, M. C. (2005). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nano-scale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roco, M. C. (2008). Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Srinivasan, P., Ruiz, M.E., Kraft, D.H. & Chen, J. (2001). Vocabulary mining for information retrieval: rough sets and fuzzy sets. Information Processing and Management, 37(1), 15–38.Google Scholar
  23. Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics, 37(2), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang, L., & Notten, A. (2010). Benchmark Report Nano-technology and Nano-science, 1998–2008. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNU-MERITMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Knowledge EngineeringMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations