Elsevier

Journal of Informetrics

Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 14-26
Journal of Informetrics

Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) extends and challenges the study of science on a number of fronts, including creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature review began with a narrow search for quantitative measures of the output of IDR that could contribute to indicators, but the authors expanded the scope of the review as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on different aspects of IDR. Key among these broader aspects is (a) the importance of incorporating the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that integration can occur within a single mind as well as among a team. Existing output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, co-inventors, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding of the social dynamics that lead to knowledge integration. Emerging measures in network dynamics (particularly betweenness centrality and diversity), and entropy are promising as indicators, but their use requires sophisticated interpretations. Combinations of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments being applied within evaluation studies appear to reveal IDR processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility year-upon-year. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR, although research and development is needed before metrics can adequately reflect the actual phenomenon of IDR.

Section snippets

Purpose of this literature review

Increases in interdisciplinary research (IDR) have prompted a number of reports and an expanding literature on the performance measures, management, and evaluation of IDR. This literature review began as a response to a request from the U.S. National Science Foundation to identify quantitative output measures (Wagner, Roessner & Bobb, 2009). Deliberations led us to expand the inquiry beyond quantitative measures to be inclusive along the following lines:

  • 1.

    Measurement of interdisciplinary research

Defining terms

The literature has not settled upon common terms to describe the underlying phenomena. A cluster of related terms describes a fairly wide range of phenomena including social and cognitive processes. The IDR literature assumes an underlying disciplinary structure, although few articles on interdisciplinarity begin by defining discipline or field. (We follow Porter, Roessner, Cohen, and Perreault (2006) who cite the work of Darden and Maull (1977), defining a discipline of science as having a

Context: processes and outcomes of interdisciplinary research

This section discusses the processes that constitute IDR, and the outputs of research that could be tapped to measure IDR. The process of integration – whether cognitive or social – is more difficult to observe (and measure) than are the results of the process, which are largely found in published literature. This may explain why more literature has focused on the outputs of research rather than the processes. Nevertheless, both the process and the output are discussed in various parts of the

Quantitative measures: structural relationships as an IDR measure

Measurement of scientific output for the purposes of creating indicators is traditionally done using bibliometric approaches, so a large part of this review focused on bibliometrics. Bibliometrics have been refined over four decades based on the widely-held view that the scientific research process is incomplete without publication. Price (1978) argued that publication provides the function within science of correction, evaluation, and acceptance by a community. Published works are collected in

Spatial distances as an assessment tool

A second approach to using bibliometrics is a methodology that describes a landscape, or space within which science operates, typically from the point of view of a single object (journal, paper, or author). As noted above, spatial distance as a measure to analyze and visualize IDR was suggested by Garfield et al. (1978). The usefulness of this measure has been enhanced by recent developments in computing and algorithms that can be used to standardize the analysis and to bring into view the

Limitations and additional issues

The use of bibliometrics tools for the measurement of IDR skews measures towards use of indexed literature in bibliographic databases. On one level, this appears to be a limitation given that much of IDR takes place as a dynamic process operating at a number of levels (whether one considers the social, the cognitive, or the knowledge dynamics of the measurement process). Output measures do not account for these dynamic processes, thus they are narrow to the point of offering what some consider

Observations

The literature reviewed here takes many approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary research. Several points of consensus emerge. First is the focus on integration of knowledge as an essential factor distinguishing interdisciplinary research. Most authors presume that science is structured (explicitly or implicitly) around a problem/facts/methodology nexus, often labeled as research specialty, discipline or knowledge domain. The literature reviewed here, complemented by the

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation for this review, particularly the guidance of Lawrence Burton of the Social Behavioral, and Economics Directorate. We also thank several reviewers and commentators, especially Loet Leydesdorff, Alan Porter, and Dan Stokols. The work by Katy Börner is partially supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation.

References (60)

  • P. Rosenfield

    The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences

    Social Science of Medicine

    (1992)
  • D. Stokols et al.

    The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement

    American Journal of Preventive Medicine

    (2008)
  • J. Adams et al.

    Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England: Bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinary research

    (2007)
  • K.E. Boulding

    General systems theory: The skeleton of science

    Management Science

    (1956)
  • K.W. Boyack

    Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2004)
  • M. Callon et al.

    From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis

    Social Science Information

    (1983)
  • C. Chen

    Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2004)
  • L. Darden et al.

    Interfield Theories

    Philosophy of Science

    (March, 1977)
  • L.C. Freeman

    A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness

    Sociometry

    (1977)
  • E. Garfield et al.

    Citation data as science indicators

  • K.S. Hamilton et al.

    Using bibliometrics to measure multidisciplinarity

    (2005)
  • M.M. Kessler

    Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers

    American Documentation

    (1963)
  • R. Klavans et al.

    Toward a consensus map of science

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2009)
  • J.T. Klein

    Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities

    (1996)
  • J.T. Klein

    The rhetoric of interdisciplinarity

  • J.M. Levitt et al.

    Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2008)
  • L. Leydesdorff

    Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2007)
  • L. Leydesdorff

    Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index

    Scientometrics

    (2007)
  • L. Leydesdorff et al.

    A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories

    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

    (2009)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text