Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 101, Issue 3, pp 1871–1895 | Cite as

How to evaluate the degree of interdisciplinarity of an institution?

  • Lorenzo Cassi
  • Wilfriedo Mescheba
  • Élisabeth de Turckheim
Article

Abstract

The Stirling index of the set of references of the corpus documents is widely used in the literature on interdisciplinary research and is defined as the integration score of the corpus under study. Such an indicator is relevant at the scale of a research institution, however, there is a gap between the integration scores of individual documents, and a global score computed on the whole set of references. The difference between the global index and the average of individual document indexes carries another relevant information about the corpus: it measures the diversity between the reference profiles of the corpus documents. It is, therefore, named between article index whereas the average of the individual article indexes is called within article index. The statistical properties of these two indexes as well as of the global index are derived from a general approximation method for distributions and lead to statistical tests which can be used to make meaningful comparisons between an institution indexes and benchmark values. The two dimensions of the global index provide a more acute information on the interdisciplinary practices of an institution researchers in a given research domain and is, therefore, likely to contribute to strategic and management issues.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary research Indicators Stirling index decomposition Inertia of a set of weighted points Asymptotic distribution of indicators Statistical tests 

Mathematics Subject Classification

60F05 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ismael Rafols and Tommaso Ciarli for a fruitful discussion on an earlier version of this paper. The issues presented in the “Discussion” section largely result of this interaction. In particular, I. Rafols made us aware of the relevance of analysing interdisciplinarity at the level of a department rather than at the university level. This issue will be considered in future work with different institutions.

References

  1. Adams, J., Jackson, L., & Marshall, S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Leeds: Evidence.Google Scholar
  2. Börner, K., Klavans, R., Patek, M., Zoss, A. M., Biberstin, J. R., Light, R. P., et al. (2012). Design and update of a classification system: The UCSD map of science. PLoS One, 7(7), e39464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Garner, J., Porter, A. L., Borrego, M., Tran, E., & Teutonico, R. (2013). Facilitating social and natural science cross-disciplinarity: Assessing the human and social dynamics program. Research Evaluation, 22(2), 134–144.Google Scholar
  4. Geyer, C. (2001). Stat 5102 Lecture notes. University of Minnesota. Retrieved August 21, 2013, from http://www.stat.umn.edu/geyer/5101/notes/n2.pdf.
  5. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A Global Map of Science Based on the ISI Subject Categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I., & Chen, C. (2013). Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journaljournal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573–2586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Omey, E., & Van Gulck, S. (2008). Central limit theorems for variances and correlation coefficients. HUB research paper. HUB, Brussels. Retrieved August 14, 2013, from http://www.edwardomey.com/nonsave/CLTforsandr.pdf.
  9. Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, D. J., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., OHare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roessner, D., Porter, A., Nersessian, N., & Carley, S. (2013). Validating indicators of interdisciplinarity: linking bibliometric measures to studies of engineering research labs. Scientometrics, 94(2), 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorenzo Cassi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wilfriedo Mescheba
    • 1
  • Élisabeth de Turckheim
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.OST - Observatoire des Sciences et des TechniquesParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre d’économie de la SorbonneUniversité Paris 1ParisFrance
  3. 3.INRA, Délégation à l’évaluationParisFrance

Personalised recommendations