Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the cognitive evolution and disciplinary diversity of nanoscience/nanotechnology (nano research) as expressed through the terminology used in titles of nano journal articles. The analysis is based on the NanoBank bibliographic database of 287,106 nano articles published between 1981 and 2004. We perform multifaceted analyses of title words, focusing on 100 most frequent words or phrases (terms). Hierarchical clustering of title terms reveals three distinct time periods of cognitive development of nano research: formative (1981–1990), early (from 1991 to 1998), and current (after 1998). Early period is characterized by the introduction of thin film deposition techniques, while the current period is characterized by the increased focus on carbon nanotube and nanoparticle research. We introduce a method to identify disciplinary components of nanotechnology. It shows that the nano research is being carried out in a number of diverse parent disciplines. Currently, only 5% of articles are published in dedicated nano-only journals. We find that some 85% of nano research today is multidisciplinary. The case study of the diffusion of several nano-specific terms (e.g., “carbon nanotube”) shows that concepts spread from the initially few disciplinary components to the majority of them in a time span of around a decade. Hierarchical clustering of disciplinary components reveals that the cognitive content of current nanoscience can be divided into nine clusters. Some clusters account for a large fraction of nano research and are identified with such parent disciplines as the condensed matter and applied physics, materials science, and analytical chemistry. Other clusters represent much smaller parts of nano research, but are as cognitively distinct. In the decreasing order of size, these fields are: polymer science, biotechnology, general chemistry, surface science, and pharmacology. Cognitive content of research published in nano-only journals is the closest to nano research published in condensed matter and applied physics journals.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Terms nanotechnology and nanoscience are used interchangeably (often shortened to nano) to refer to a research field studying objects that have a size or structure of 1–100 nm, and we will use them in such a way in this article as well.

  2. As explained in the introduction, this refers to research that does not belong to any other parent discipline, i.e., to nano articles published in nano journals.

  3. Hereafter, we will refer to this combination of words and phrases as terms.

  4. But note that we already treat QUANTUM DOT as a separate phrase.

  5. In subsequent text, we will occasionally shorten disciplinary component by field, but the meaning should always be clear from the context.

  6. Chemical vapor deposition is one of the techniques that have been developed to produce larger quantities of nanotubes.

  7. Mody (2006) reports that it was invented in 1979; Jacoby (2000) places the invention of the STM in the early 1980s; while Darby (Darby and Zucker 2003) says that it was invented in 1981.

References

  • Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassecoulard E, Lelu A, Zitt M (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–880

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon M, Courtial JP, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Soc Sci Inf 22(2):191–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby MR, Zucker LG (2003) Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry into nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper, No. 9825

  • Glänzel W, Meyer M, Du Plessis M, Thijs B, Magerman T, Schlemmer B et al (2003) Nanotechnology: analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Report of Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles NK (2004) Connecting the quantum dots: nanotechscience and culture. In: Hayles NK (ed) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Bristol, pp 11–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze T (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(4):427–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang C, Chen HC, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: county, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanopart Res 6(4):325–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang C, Notten A, Rasters N (2011) Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. J Technol Transfer 36:145–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby M (2000) New tools for tiny jobs. Chem Eng News 78(42):33–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff L (1989) Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Res Policy 18:209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff L, Zhou P (2007) Nanotechnology as a field of science: its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics 70(3):693–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Lin Y, Larson CA, Roco MC (2008) A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature: 1976–2004. J Nanopart Res 10(Supplement 1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucio-Arias D, Leydesdorff L (2007) Knowledge emergence in scientific communication: from “fullerenes” to “nanotubes”. Scientometrics 70(3):603–632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Bhattacharya S (2004) Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics 61(3):443–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Persson O (1998) Nanotechnology—interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2):195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milburn C (2004) Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as science. In: Hayles NK (ed) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Portland, pp 109–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Milojević S (2009) Big science, nano science?: mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Milojević S (2010) Modes of collaboration in modern science: beyond power laws and preferential attachment. J Am Soc Inf Sci 61(7):1410–1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mody CCM (2006) Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technol Cult 47:56–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monthioux M, Serp P, Flahaut E, Razafinimanana M, Laurent C, Peigney A et al (2007) Introduction to carbon nanotubes. In: Bhushan B (ed) Springer handbook of nanotechnology. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Noyons ECM, Buter RK, van Raan AFJ, Schmoch U, Heinze T, Hinze S et al (2003) Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe: nanoscience and nanotechnology. Leiden University, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF (National Science Foundation) (1997) “Partnership in nanotechnology” program announcement. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf9820

  • Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? J Nanopart Res 11:1023–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Provalis Research (2005) WordStat: content analysis module for SIMSTAT & QDA Minder: User’s Guide, from http://www.provalisresearch.com/Documents/wordstat51.pdf]

  • Rafols I, Meyer M (2007) How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics 70(3):633–650

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res 10:11–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the national nanotechnology initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res 13:427–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: integrating from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 4:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. J Nanopart Res 13:897–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2004a) Interdisciplinary issues in nanoscale research. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 9–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2004b) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425–463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DL (1995) Thin-film deposition: principles & practice. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Toumey C (2009) Plenty of room, plenty of history. Nat Nanotechnol 4:783–784

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Toumey C (2010) In the footsteps of biotech. Nat Nanotechnol 5:475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman J (2008) Emergent technosciences. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 813–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10:981–986

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: initial results and NanoBank. NBER Working Paper 11181

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR (2007) Nanobank Data Description release 2.0 (beta-test). UCLA Center for International Science, Technology and Cultural Policy and Nanobank, Los Angeles, 17 Jan 2007–2 Feb 2009

  • Zucker LG, Darby MR, Furner J, Liu RC, Ma H (2007) Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Res Policy 36(6):850–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Certain data included herein are derived from NanoBank (Lynne G. Zucker and Michael R. Darby, NanoBank Data Description, release 1.0 (beta-test), Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for International Science, Technology, and Cultural Policy and NanoBank, January 17, 2007). Certain data included herein are derived from the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information®, Inc. (ISI®), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA: © Copyright Institute for Scientific Information®, Inc. 2006. All rights reserved.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Staša Milojević

Authors
  1. Staša Milojević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Staša Milojević.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milojević, S. Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 14, 685 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0685-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0685-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation