Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time
- First Online:
- 1.6k Downloads
In the last two decades there have been studies claiming that science is becoming ever more interdisciplinary. However, the evidence has been anecdotal or partial. Here we investigate how the degree of interdisciplinarity has changed between 1975 and 2005 over six research domains. To do so, we compute well-established bibliometric indicators alongside a new index of interdisciplinarity (Integration score, aka Rao-Stirling diversity) and a science mapping visualization method. The results attest to notable changes in research practices over this 30 year period, namely major increases in number of cited disciplines and references per article (both show about 50% growth), and co-authors per article (about 75% growth). However, the new index of interdisciplinarity only shows a modest increase (mostly around 5% growth). Science maps hint that this is because the distribution of citations of an article remains mainly within neighboring disciplinary areas. These findings suggest that science is indeed becoming more interdisciplinary, but in small steps — drawing mainly from neighboring fields and only modestly increasing the connections to distant cognitive areas. The combination of metrics and overlay science maps provides general benchmarks for future studies of interdisciplinary research characteristics.
- Adams, J., Jackson, L., Marshall, S. (2007), Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report for HEFCE. Evidence, Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
- Bategelj, V., Mrvar, A. (2008), Pajek. Program for Large Network Analysis. http://vlado.fmf.unilj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ Accessed 15-01-2008.
- Chen, C. (2003), Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization, Springer, London.Google Scholar
- Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. And Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies, Sage, London.Google Scholar
- Glänzel, W. (2002), Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies, Library Trends, 50: 461–473.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, K. S., Narin, F., Olivastro, D. (2005), Using bibliometrics to measure multidisciplinarity, ipIQ, Inc. Westmon, NJ, US.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I. (2008), a global map of science based on the isi subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Doi 10.1002/asi.20967. Preprint Available at: http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/map06/texts/map06.pdf
- National Academies — Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (2005), Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Price, D. S. (1986), Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L. (under review), Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Available at: http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/classifications/classifications.pdf
- Rafols, I., Meyer, M. (forthcoming), Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, Available at: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/rafols-meyer-diversity2008.pdf