Orientations and outcome of interdisciplinary research: the case of research behaviour in translational medical science

AbstractThe importance of interdisciplinary research in accelerating the progress and commercialization of science is widely recognized, yet little is known about how academic research self-organizes towards interdisciplinarity. In this paper, we therefore explore the micro-level behavior of researchers as they venture into a promising space for interdisciplinary research, namely translational research—a bridge between basic and applied biomedical research. More specifically, we ask (1) whether the researchers who choose to engage in translational research have a strong scientific record, (2) how interdisciplinary research spanning basic and applied research influences the output of academic research, and (3) how different disciplinary distance in interdisciplinary research contributes to reputational benefits of researchers. We find that for some types of collaboration, interdisciplinarity results in more highly cited research, while in others it is not, and look for explanations for this difference. Our results show that translational research draws higher citations when it involves university researchers from the most basic end of the disciplinary spectrum, and when its issues are directed at basic (rather than applied) research.

[1]  F. Scherer.  New Perspectives on Economic Growth and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[2]  N. Moran,et al.  Public sector seeks to bridge 'valley of death' , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[3]  D. Roblin,et al.  Translational research in the pharmaceutical industry: from theory to reality. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[4]  Stefano Brusoni,et al.  The knowledge bases of the world’s largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal? , 2005 .

[5]  J. Fricker.  Translational cancer research in Europe , 2007, Molecular oncology.

[6]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[7]  G. Ahuja.  Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study , 1998 .

[8]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[9]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[10]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  The Role of the Scientific Community in the Generation of Technology , 1996 .

[11]  A. Gelijns,et al.  Medical innovation and institutional interdependence: rethinking university-industry connections. , 2002, JAMA.

[12]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .

[13]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[14]  E. Zerhouni.  Translational and clinical science--time for a new vision. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  R. Sartor.  Translational research: Bridging the widening gap between basic and clinical research. , 2003, Gastroenterology.

[16]  Rich Gazan,et al.  Assessing researcher interdisciplinarity: a case study of the University of Hawaii NASA Astrobiology Institute , 2012, Scientometrics.

[17]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Science and Technology Policy in Interdependent Economies , 1994 .

[18]  G. Mills,et al.  Translational research--traffic on the bridge. , 2001, Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie.

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

[20]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Will genomics widen or help heal the schism between medicine and public health? , 2007, American journal of preventive medicine.

[21]  G. Lewison,et al.  Mapping the emergence and development of translational cancer research. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[22]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity , 2005 .

[23]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows , 2000 .

[24]  W. Powell,et al.  Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. , 1996 .

[25]  Roy Cameron,et al.  Better Knowledge Translation for Effective Cancer Control: A Priority for Action , 2004, Cancer Causes & Control.

[26]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[27]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies , 2006 .

[28]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time , 2009, Scientometrics.

[29]  Kathryn L. Combs,et al.  The Economics of Science and Technology , 2012 .

[30]  R. Tijssen.  A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research☆ , 1992 .

[31]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions , 2001 .

[32]  H. Moed.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Information Science & Knowledge Management) , 2005 .

[33]  J. Hagedoorn.  Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences , 1993 .