Skip to main content

Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach

Scientometrics volume 94, pages 877–892 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Using a keyword mining approach, this paper explores the interdisciplinary and integrative dynamics in five nano research fields. We argue that the general trend of integration in nano research fields is converging in the long run, although the degree of this convergence depends greatly on the indicators one chooses. Our results show that nano technologies applied in the five studied nano fields become more diverse over time. One field learns more and more related technologies from others. The publication and citation analysis also proves that nano technology has developed to a relatively mature stage and has become a standardized and codified technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    It can also be denoted by A∩B∩C∩D∩E.

  2. 2.

    For instance, each published article from Web of Science has at least one subject category, indicating a general area of science or the social sciences.

  3. 3.

    The two recent year (2008 and 2009) are not included in the citation analysis.

  4. 4.

    Though hospitals are often attached to universities or research institute, they are private in many countries. Therefore we have hospital as one separate category instead of being incorporated into academic.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (1997). Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In Edquist, C. (ed.) 1997 Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and Washington: Pinter/Cassell Academic, pp. 130-156

  4. Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2010). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 145–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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  Google Scholar 

  6. Igami, M. & Saka, A. (2007). Capturing the evolving nature of science, the development of new scientific indicators and the mapping of science. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2007/1.

  7. van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Loveridge, D., Dewick, P., & Randles, S. (2008). Converging technologies at the nanoscale: The making of a new world? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Newman, N., Huang, C., Notten, A., & Wang, L. (2009). Report on Benchmarking Global Nanotechnology Scientific Research, 1998–2007. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nicolau, D. (2004). Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology policies: An Australian perspective. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 1(4), 446–462.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Information and Computer Sciences, 11(5), 341–356.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roco, M. C. (2005). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nano-scale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 129–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Roco, M. C. (2008). Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Srinivasan, P., Ruiz, M.E., Kraft, D.H. & Chen, J. (2001). Vocabulary mining for information retrieval: rough sets and fuzzy sets. Information Processing and Management, 37(1), 15–38.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics, 37(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang, L., & Notten, A. (2010). Benchmark Report Nano-technology and Nano-science, 1998–2008. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University, Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211 TC, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Lili Wang & Ad Notten

  2. Department of Knowledge Engineering, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 8-10, 6211 LH, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Alexandru Surpatean

Authors
  1. Lili Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ad Notten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandru Surpatean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lili Wang.

Appendix

Appendix

See Appendix Table 6.

Table 6 Cited publications cross five fields (1998–2007): non-standardized percentages
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, L., Notten, A. & Surpatean, A. Interdisciplinarity of nano research fields: a keyword mining approach. Scientometrics 94, 877–892 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0856-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nanoscience and nanotechnology
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Research fields
  • Publication analysis
  • Citation analysis
  • Institutional cooperation
  • Vocabulary mining
  • Rough set theory

JEL Classification

  • O31
  • O32
  • L52
  • L65