Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the characteristics of scientific activity patterns through co-author affiliations to obtain new insights into interdisciplinary research. To classify the interdisciplinarity in research, we explored and compared two different approaches: the diversity of disciplines reflected in the listed affiliations of the authors and the diversity of the subject categories reflected in the reference list. To assess the diversity in departmental affiliations, we developed an explorative methodology that retrieves feature words from a combination of manual work and the thesaurus function in the Thomson Data Analyzer text mining tool. To assess the diversity in references, we followed the conventional approach applied in previous work. With both approaches, we relied on diversity as the measure for assessing interdisciplinarity of 157,710 articles published in PloS One (2007–2016). Based on a comparison between the results of both approaches, our study confirms that different methodologies and indicators can produce seriously inconsistent, and even contradictory results. In addition, different indicators may capture different understandings of such a multi-faceted concept as interdisciplinarity. Our results are summarized in a schematic representation of this twofold perspective as a method of indexing the different types of interdisciplinarity commonly found in research studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, at the level of consolidated scientific research programmes, US science and technology funding agencies are increasingly supporting large-scale, centralized, grant-based research projects that span multiple disciplines and institutions (Corley et al. 2006). European programs are promoting collaboration and creating regional and international scientific networks of different generations of researchers to spread skills (European Commission 2012). Further, leading research institutes are demanding innovative solutions that combine knowledge from different scientific disciplines (National Academies 2004).

  2. In the following part, affiliation(s) always refers to the departmental affiliation(s) listed by an author.

  3. The cross-citation matrix of all SCs (1991–2015) was constructed by Lin Zhang based on an in-house database of the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), Belgium.

  4. Some experiments were tried before we set the threshold of 60%. Compared to other thresholds, for instances, 70% or 80%, the threshold of 60% provides a much more balanced distribution of publications among the three sub-datasets.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2012). Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 63(11), 2206–2222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2017). Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science? Scientometrics, 111(1), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Zhang, L. (2018). A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list. Journal of Informetrics. (under review).

  • Adams, J., Loach, T., & Szomszor, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary research: Methodologies for identification and assessment. Digital Research Reports. London: Digital Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Medecine Clinique et Experimentale, 29(6), 351–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35(7), 975–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, M., & Pahre, R. (1990). Creative marginality: Innovation at the intersections of social sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach. Brussels, COM (2012) 497 final. Retrieved April 24, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/policy/com_2012_497_communication_from_commission_to_inst_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.

  • Garfield, E., Malin, M., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. In Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators (pp. 179–208). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., Li, W., Li, L., Houston, D., & Wu, J. (2016). Refining time-activity classification of human subjects using the global positioning system. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L., & Wang, X. (2016). How does national scientific funding support emerging interdisciplinary research: A comparison study of big data research in the US and China. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, L. (2009). Mismeasuring biological diversity: Response to Hoffmann and Hoffmann (2008). Ecological Economics, 68(4), 925–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525(7569), 308–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinster, T., & Cobbold, C. A. (2012). Measuring diversity: The importance of species similarity. Ecology, 93(3), 477–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield. Scientometrics, 114(2), 567–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, F., Spoorenberg, A., Brouwer, E., Bos, R., Efde, M., Chaudhry, R. N., et al. (2015). Spinal radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with TNF-alpha blocking therapy: A prospective longitudinal observational cohort study. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugabushaka, A. M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: the potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2004). Retrieved April 26, 2018, from https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/additional_resources/interdisciplinary_research/definition.jsp.

  • Nijssen, D., Rousseau, R., & Hecke, P. V. (1998). The Lorenz curve: A graphical representation of evenness. Coenoses, 13(1), 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1982). Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: A unified approach. Theoretical Population Biology, 21(1), 24–43.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rijnsoever, F. J. V., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J., Leeuwen, T. N. V., & Raan, A. F. J. V. (2002). Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Scientometrics, 53(2), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R., Zhang, L., & Hu, X. J. (2018). Knowledge Integration: Its meaning and measurement. In W. Glänzel, H. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmickl, C., & Kieser, A. (2008). How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37(3), 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., et al. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl_1), S21–S39.  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumra, M. K., & Schillaci, M. A. (2015). Stress and the multiple-role woman: Taking a closer look at the “Superwoman”. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suresh, S. (2012). Global challenges need global solutions. Nature, 490, 337–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, W. J., Bellingan, L., Bellingham, J. R., Blackstock, J. J., Bloomfield, R. M., Bravo, M., et al. (2012). A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e31824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 555–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1257–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Sun, B., & Huang, Y. (2018). Interdisciplinarity measurement based on interdisciplinary collaborations: A case study on highly cited researchers of ESI social sciences. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, in Chinese, 37(3), 231–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Sun, B., Huang, Y., & Chen, L. X. (2017). Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: On the relationship between disciplinary diversity in the references and in the departmental affiliations. In Proceedings of ISSI 2017—The 16th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 1064–1075). Wuhan University, China.

  • Zhou, L., Liu, L., Liu, X., Chen, P., Liu, L., Zhang, Y., et al. (2014). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of Chinese herbal decoction for the treatment of gout. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present study is an extended version of an article presented at the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, Wuhan (China), 16–20 October 2017 (Zhang et al. 2017). The authors would like to acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71573085), the Innovation Talents of Science and Technology in HeNan Province (Grant Nos. 16HASTIT038, 2015GGJS-108), and the Excellent Scholarship in Social Science in HeNan Province (No. 2018-YXXZ-10). We thank Giovanni Abramo and Ronald Rousseau for inspiring discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    Lin Zhang

  2. Department MSI, Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Lin Zhang

  3. Department of Management and Economics, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, China

    Lin Zhang, Beibei Sun & Lixin Chen

  4. Institute of Policies and Public Goods, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC-IPP), Madrid, Spain

    Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez

  5. Department of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha, China

    Ying Huang

Authors
  1. Lin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beibei Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lixin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ying Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lin Zhang or Ying Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, L., Sun, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. et al. Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: on the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists. Scientometrics 117, 271–291 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2853-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2853-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation