Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature
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)
- et al.
Some measures for comparing citation databases
Journal of Informetrics
(2007) - et al.
Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery
Journal of Informetrics
(2009) The National Cancer Institute's transdisciplinary centers initiatives and the need for building a science of team science
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008)Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008)- et al.
Moving the science of team science forward
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008) - et al.
The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008) - et al.
Toward transdisciplinary research: Historical and contemporary perspectives
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008)- et al.
Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008) Transdisciplinary training: Key components and prerequisites for success
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2008)