Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abt, H. A. (2007a), The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences. Scientometrics, 71(1): 105–115.
Abt, H. A. (2007b), The future of single-authored papers. Scientometrics, 73(3): 353–358.
Adams, J., Jackson, L., Marshall, S. (2007), Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research. Report for HEFCE. Evidence, Leeds, UK.
Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., Rousseau, R. (2003), Requirement for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6): 550–560.
Bategelj, V., Mrvar, A. (2008), Pajek. Program for Large Network Analysis. http://vlado.fmf.unilj.si/pub/networks/pajek/ Accessed 15-01-2008.
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., Börner, K. (2005), Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3): 351–374.
Braun, T., Schubert, A. (2003), A quantitative view on the coming of age of Interdisciplinarity in the sciences, 1980–1999. Scientometrics 58(1): 183–189.
Chen, C. (2003), Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization, Springer, London.
Cronin, B. (2001), Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52: 558–569.
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.
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.
Grupp, H. (1990), The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research. An indicator for institutional involvement in scientific and technological developments. Scientometrics, 18(3–4): 219–239.
Hamilton, K. S., Narin, F., Olivastro, D. (2005), Using bibliometrics to measure multidisciplinarity, ipIQ, Inc. Westmon, NJ, US.
Hicks, D. M., Katz, J. S. (1996), Where Is Science Going? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4): 379–406.
Klavans, R., Boyack, K. W. (2006), Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2): 251–263.
Laudel, G. (2001), Collaboration, creativity and rewards: Why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7–8): 762–781.
Leahey, E. (2006), Gender differences in productivity — Research specialization as a missing link, Gender & Society, 20(6): 754–780.
Leydesdorff, L. (2006), Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(5): 601–613.
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
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., Gomez, I. (2001), An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 51(1): 203–222.
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., Gomez, 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.
Moya-Anegon, F., Vargas-Quesada, B., Herrero-Solana, V., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Corera-Alvarez, E., Munoz-Fernandez, F. J. (2004), A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories, Scientometrics, 61: 129–145.
Moya-Anegón, F. De, Vargas-Quesada, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., Munoz-Fernández, F. J., Herrero-Solana, V. (2007), Visualizing the marrow of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14), 2167–2179.
National Academies — Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (2005), Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., Perreault, M. (2007), Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity, Scientometrics, 72(1): 117–147.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., Perreault, M. (2006), Interdisciplinary research — Meaning, metrics and nurture, Research Evaluation, 15(3): 187–195.
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Heberger, A. E. (2008), How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation 17(4): 273–282.
Price, D. S. (1986), Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rafols, I. (2007), Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bionanotechnology: Why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 20(4): 395–412.
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. (2007), How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3): 633–650.
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
Rao, C. R. (1982), Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: a unified approach. Theoretical Population Biology, 21: 24–43.
Salton, G., Mcgill, M. J. (1983), Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval. Auckland, etc.: McGraw-Hill.
Stirling, A. (2007), A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 4(15): 707–719.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Porter, A.L., Rafols, I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81, 719–745 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2