Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigate whether and in what measure scientists tend to diversify their research activity, and if this tendency varies according to their belonging to different disciplinary areas. We analyze the nature of research diversification along three dimensions: extent of diversification, intensity of diversification, and degree of relatedness of topics in which researchers diversifies. For this purpose we propose three bibliometric indicators, based on the disciplinary placement of scientific output of individual scientists. The empirical investigation shows that the extent of diversification is lowest for scientists in Mathematics and highest in Chemistry; intensity of diversification is lowest in Earth sciences and highest in Industrial and information engineering; and degree of relatedness is lowest in Earth sciences and highest in Chemistry.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For details see http://incites.isiknowledge.com/common/help/h_field_category_wos.html. Last accessed 4 April 2017.

  2. For details see http://www.scopus.tk/2016/06/asjc-code-list.html. Last accessed 4 April 2017.

  3. For the complete list see http://attiministeriali.miur.it/UserFiles/115.htm. Last accessed 4 April 2017.

  4. Mathematics and computer sciences; Physics; Chemistry; Earth sciences; Biology; Medicine; Agricultural and veterinary sciences; Civil engineering; Industrial and information engineering.

  5. http://www.nifu.no/en/statistikk/databaser-og-registre/4897-2/ Last accessed 4 April 2017.

  6. The choice of a publication window quite far in the past is in consideration of a planned follow-up study with the aim of assessing whether interdisciplinary output is more influential in terms of citations: a longer citation window assures more robust and reliable results.

  7. See http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php. Last accessed 4 April, 2017.

  8. Article, reviews, letters and conference proceedings.

  9. Each WoS subject category is associated with a single discipline, i.e., one of: Mathematics; Physics; Chemistry; Earth and space sciences; Biology; Biomedical research; Clinical medicine; Psychology; Engineering; Economics; Law, Political and social sciences; Multidisciplinary sciences; Art and humanities.

  10. For reasons of significance, we omit the SDSs (8 in all) with less than 10 diversified professors.

  11. Here too, we omit the SDSs (8 in all) with less than 10 diversified professors.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2012). Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2206–2222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1998). Institutions and the map of science: Matching university departments and fields of research. Research Policy, 26(6), 711–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C. A., & Abramo, G. (2015). Publication rates in 192 research fields. In A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15 th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference–(ISSI–2015) (pp. 909–919). Istanbul: Bogazici University Printhouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C. A., Giuffrida, C., & Abramo, G. (2011). A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in large-scale bibliometric databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., Dorta-González, M. I., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Suárez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugabushaka, A. M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: the potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S., & Perreault, M. (2006). Interdiscipinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, D., Caruso, D., & Parker, A. (2003). A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Hybrid Vigor Institute: NSF BCS-0129573 Final Report.

  • Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Vuren, H. G., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rørstad, K., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Publication rate expressed by age, gender and academic position-A large-scale analysis of Norwegian academic staff. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis and Praxis, 5(1), 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (1994). Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment: addressing the solution rather than the problem. Energy Policy, 22(3), 195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J., & van Leeuwen, T. (2002). Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinarity, applied research. Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research. Research Policy, 31(4), 611–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Q., & Waltman, L. (2016). Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1257–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Studies in Research Evaluation, Institute for System Analysis and Computer Science (IASI-CNR), National Research Council of Italy, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Abramo, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa

  2. Department of Engineering and Management, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo

Authors
  1. Giovanni Abramo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Flavia Di Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Abramo.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C.A. & Di Costa, F. Specialization versus diversification in research activities: the extent, intensity and relatedness of field diversification by individual scientists. Scientometrics 112, 1403–1418 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2426-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2426-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation