Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time

In the last two decades there have been studies claiming that science is becoming ever more interdisciplinary. However, the evidence has been anecdotal or partial. Here we investigate how the degree of interdisciplinarity has changed between 1975 and 2005 over six research domains. To do so, we compute well-established bibliometric indicators alongside a new index of interdisciplinarity (Integration score, aka Rao-Stirling diversity) and a science mapping visualization method. The results attest to notable changes in research practices over this 30 year period, namely major increases in number of cited disciplines and references per article (both show about 50% growth), and co-authors per article (about 75% growth). However, the new index of interdisciplinarity only shows a modest increase (mostly around 5% growth). Science maps hint that this is because the distribution of citations of an article remains mainly within neighboring disciplinary areas. These findings suggest that science is indeed becoming more interdisciplinary, but in small steps — drawing mainly from neighboring fields and only modestly increasing the connections to distant cognitive areas. The combination of metrics and overlay science maps provides general benchmarks for future studies of interdisciplinary research characteristics.

[1]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators , 2001, Scientometrics.

[2]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping the backbone of science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[4]  Sven Hemlin,et al.  Research on research evaluation , 1996 .

[5]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors , 2007, Scientometrics.

[6]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  D. Price,et al.  Little Science, Big Science and Beyond , 1986 .

[8]  Tibor Braun,et al.  A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999 , 2003, Scientometrics.

[9]  Calyampudi R. Rao Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: A unified approach☆ , 1982 .

[10]  Michael McGill,et al.  Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval , 1983 .

[11]  Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez,et al.  Visualizing the marrow of science , 2007 .

[12]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping scientific frontiers : the quest for knowledge visualization. , 2003 .

[13]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity , 2007, Scientometrics.

[14]  A. Stirling A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society , 2007, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[15]  I. Ràfols,et al.  STRATEGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN BIONANOTECHNOLOGY , 2007 .

[16]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Grit Laudel,et al.  Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[18]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience , 2009, Scientometrics.

[19]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Coauthorship Patterns and Trends in the Sciences (1980-1998): A Bibliometric Study With Implications for Database Indexing and Search Strategies , 2002, Libr. Trends.

[20]  Diana Hicks,et al.  Where Is Science Going? , 1996 .

[21]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[22]  Hariolf Grupp The concept of entropy in scientometrics and innovation research , 2005, Scientometrics.

[23]  RousseauRonald,et al.  Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient , 2003 .

[24]  Vladimir Batagelj,et al.  Pajek - Program for Large Network Analysis , 1999 .

[25]  Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez,et al.  A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories , 2004, Scientometrics.

[26]  Félix de Moya Anegón,et al.  Visualizing the marrow of science , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Helmut A. Abt,et al.  The frequencies of multinational papers in various sciences , 2007, Scientometrics.

[28]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization , 2012, Springer London.

[29]  A. Porter,et al.  Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture , 2006 .

[30]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science , 2006 .

[31]  I. Ràfols,et al.  Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition in Bionanotechnology: Why Are Interdisciplinary Practices Less Widespread Than Expected? , 2007 .

[32]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects , 2009 .

[33]  Helmut A. Abt,et al.  The future of single-authored papers , 2007, Scientometrics.

[34]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Content-based and algorithmic classifications of journals: Perspectives on the dynamics of scientific communication and indexer effects , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[35]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[36]  A. Porter,et al.  How interdisciplinary is a given body of research , 2008 .

[37]  Isabel Gómez,et al.  Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..