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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It can also be denoted by A∩B∩C∩D∩E.
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.
The two recent year (2008 and 2009) are not included in the citation analysis.
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
Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859–880.
Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.
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
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.
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.
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.
van Leeuwen, T., & Tijssen, R. (2000). Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), 183–187.
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.
Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology—Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.
Newman, N., Huang, C., Notten, A., & Wang, L. (2009). Report on Benchmarking Global Nanotechnology Scientific Research, 1998–2007. Brussels: European Commission.
Nicolau, D. (2004). Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology policies: An Australian perspective. Nanotechnology Law and Business, 1(4), 446–462.
Pawlak, Z. (1982). Rough sets. International Journal of Information and Computer Sciences, 11(5), 341–356.
Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8(3–4), 161–176.
Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.
Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.
Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.
Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.
Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–655.
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.
Roco, M. C. (2008). Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 11–29.
Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.
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.
Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics, 37(2), 267–278.
Wang, L., & Notten, A. (2010). Benchmark Report Nano-technology and Nano-science, 1998–2008. Brussels: European Commission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Appendix Table 6.
Rights 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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0856-9
Keywords
- Nanoscience and nanotechnology
- Interdisciplinarity
- Research fields
- Publication analysis
- Citation analysis
- Institutional cooperation
- Vocabulary mining
- Rough set theory