Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article

The evolution of research collaboration within and across disciplines in Italian Academia

Published: 01 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

In sociology of science much attention is dedicated to the study of scientific networks, especially to co-authorship and citations in publications. Other trends of research have investigated the advantages, limits, performances and difficulties of interdisciplinary research, which is increasingly advocated by the main lines of public research funding. This paper explores the dynamics of interdisciplinary research in Italy over 10 years of scientific collaboration on research projects. Instead of looking at the output of research, i.e. publications, we analyse the original research proposals that have been funded by the Ministry of University and Research for a specific line of funding, the Research Projects of National Interest. In particular, we want to see how much interdisciplinary research has been conducted during the period under analysis and how changes in the overall amount of public funding might have affected disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration. We also want to cluster the similarities and differences of the amount of disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration across scientific disciplines, and see if it changes over time. Finally, we want to see if interdisciplinary projects receive an increasing share of funding compared to their disciplinary bounded counterparts. Our results indicate that while interdisciplinary research diminishes along the years, potentially responding to the contraction of public funding, research that cut across disciplinary boundaries overall receives more funding than research confined within disciplinary boundaries. Furthermore, the clustering procedure do not indicate clear and stable distinction between disciplines, but similar patterns of disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration are shown by discipline with common epistemological frameworks, which share compatible epistemologies of scientific investigations. We conclude by reflecting upon the implications of our findings for research policies and practices and by discussing future research in this area.

References

[1]
Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[2]
Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2013). The importance of accounting for the number of coauthors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (1), 198-208.
[3]
Barnes, B., & Bloor, D. (1982). Relativism, rationalism and sociology of knowledge. In M. Hollis & S. Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism . Oxford: Blackwell.
[4]
Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37 (1), 20-49.
[5]
Batagelj, V., Doreian, P., Ferligoj, A., & Kejzar, N. (Eds.). (2014). Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks: Exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution . Hoboken: Wiley.
[6]
Batagelj, V., & Kej¿ar, N. (2011). Clamix - clustering symbolic objects . Retrieved from https://r-forge.rproject.org/projects/clamix.
[7]
Batagelj, V., Kej¿ar, N., & Korenjak-¿erne, S. (2016). Clustering of modal valued symbolic data. ADAC: Advances in Data Analysis and Classification. arXiv:1507.06683 [stat.ML].
[8]
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories . Buckingham: Open University Press/ SRHE.
[9]
Bellotti, E. (2015). Qualitative networks. Mixed methods in sociological research . London: Routledge.
[10]
Billard, L., & Diday, E. (2006). Symbolic data analysis. Conceptual statistics and data mining . New York: Wiley.
[11]
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis . Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
[12]
Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64 (3), 351-374.
[13]
Breiger, R. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53 , 181-190.
[14]
Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a European Research Area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27 , 747-772.
[15]
Bruce, A. C., Tait, L. J., & Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures, 36 , 457-470.
[16]
Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22 (2), 191-235.
[17]
Carley, K. M. (2003). Dynamic network analysis. In R. L. Breiger, K. M. Carley, & P. E. Pattison (Eds.), Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: Workshop summary and papers . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
[18]
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29 (6), 351-364.
[19]
Chubin, D. E. (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialties. The Sociological Quarterly, 17 (4), 448-476.
[20]
Collins, H. (1985). Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[21]
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
[22]
Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 , 558-569.
[23]
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 703-722.
[24]
De Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science . New York: Columbia University Press.
[25]
De Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149 , 510-515.
[26]
Fararo, T., & Doreian, P. (1984). Tripartite structural analysis: Generalizing the Breiger-Wilson formalism. Social Networks, 6 , 141-175.
[27]
Fuller, S. (1991). Disciplinary boundaries and the rhetoric of the social sciences. Poetics Today, 12 , 301-325.
[28]
Fuller, S. (2003). Interdisciplinarity: The loss of the heroic vision in the marketplace of ideas . Prepared for rethinking interdisciplinarity, interdisciplines, Paris, Oct 1.
[29]
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122 , 108-111.
[30]
Garfield, E., Sher, I. H., & Torpie, R. J. (1964). The use of citation data in writing the history of science . Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
[31]
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies . London: Sage.
[32]
Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists' discourse . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[33]
Hagstrom, W. O. (1970). Factors related to the use of different modes of publishing research in four scientific fields. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers . Lexington Mass: Lexington Books.
[34]
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (10), 952-965.
[35]
Hicks, D. M., & Katz, J. S. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology and Human Values, 21 , 379-406.
[36]
Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35 , 43-65.
[37]
Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33 (4), 539-562.
[38]
Kadushin, C. (1966). The friends and supporters of psychotherapy: On social circles in urban life. American Sociological Review, 31 , 786-802.
[39]
Kadushin, C. (1968). Power, influence and social circles: A new methodology for studying opinion makers. American Sociological Review, 33 , 685-699.
[40]
Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaborations. Scientometrics, 31 (1), 31-43.
[41]
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 , 1-18.
[42]
Kej¿ar, N., Korenjak-¿erne, S., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Clustering of distributions: A case of patent citations. Journal of Classification, 28 (2), 156-183.
[43]
Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (2), 116-123.
[44]
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1992). The couch, the cathedral and the laboratory: On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[45]
Korenjak-¿erne, S., Batagelj, V., & Japelj Pave¿ic, B. (2011). Clustering large data sets described with discrete distributions and its application on TIMSS data set. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining, 4 (2), 199-215.
[46]
Korenjak-¿erne, S., Kej¿ar, N., & Batagelj, V. (2015). A weighted clustering of population pyramids for the world's countries, 1996, 2001, 2006. Population Studies, 69 (1), 105-120.
[47]
Koskinen, J., & Edling, C. (2012). Modelling the evolution of a bipartite network--Peer referral in interlocking directorates. Social Networks, 34 (3), 309-322.
[48]
Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2015). Classifying scientific disciplines in slovenia: A study of the evolution of collaboration structures. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (2), 321-339.
[49]
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[50]
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11 (1), 3-15.
[51]
Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11 , 291-320.
[52]
Leydesdorff, L. (1991). In search of epistemic networks. Social Studies of Science, 21 , 75-110.
[53]
Maggioni, M. A., Nosvelli, M., & Uberti, T. E. (2014). Does intentional mean hierarchical? Knowledge flows and innovative performance of European regions. Annals of Regional Science, 53 , 453-485.
[54]
Maggioni, M. A., & Uberti, T. E. (2007). Inter-regional knowledge flows in Europe: An econometric analysis. In K. Frenken (Ed.), Applied evolutionary economics and economic geography . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Company.
[55]
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics. Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences . Berlin: Springer.
[56]
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54 (13), 1237-1249.
[57]
Pascuzzi, G. (2012). An Italian story: The «Settori scientifico-disciplinari». Materiali per una Storia della Cultura Giuridica, 1 , 91-122.
[58]
Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., Fischer, H. M., Brown, J., Kanfer, A., & Bowker, G. (2004). Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy, 33 , 661-678.
[59]
Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., & Siokas, E. (2010). Policy-driven collaborative research networks in Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19 , 349-372.
[60]
Qin, J., Lancaster, F. W., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 (10), 893-916.
[61]
R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
[62]
Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items and Issues, 5 (1-2), 6-11.
[63]
Scharnhorst, A., Börner, K., & van den Besselaar, P. (Eds.). (2012). Models of science dynamics. Encounters between complexity theory and information . Berlin: Springer.
[64]
Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. Annals of Regional Science, 46 , 247-266.
[65]
Scherngell, T., & Lata, R. (2013). Towards an integrated European research area? Findings from eigenvector filtered spatial interaction models using European framework programme data. Papers in Regional Science, 92 (3), 555-577.
[66]
Shiffrin, R. M., & Börner, K. (2004). Mapping knowledge domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (1), 5183-5185.
[67]
Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6 , 33-38.
[68]
Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In N. Stehr & P. Weingart (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
[69]
Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize as objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58 , 236-244.
[70]
Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences . Oxford: Clarendon.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Scientometrics
Scientometrics  Volume 109, Issue 2
November 2016
785 pages

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2016

Author Tags

  1. Cluster analysis
  2. Interdisciplinary
  3. Scientific collaborations
  4. Scientific networks
  5. Scientometrics
  6. Social network analysis

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approachScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04368-9127:12(6961-6991)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022
  • (2020)Italian sociologists: a community of disconnected groupsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-020-03555-w124:3(2361-2382)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2020
  • (2018)Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authorsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-018-2822-7116:3(1589-1613)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2018
  • (2018)The conundrum of research productivityScientometrics10.1007/s11192-017-2606-5114:3(859-882)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media