journal article·2009-07Open access

How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?

Alan L. Porter, Jan Youtie

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 11· Issue 5

Abstract

Facilitating cross-disciplinary research has attracted much attention in recent years, with special concerns in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Although policy discourse has emphasized that nanotechnology is substantively integrative, some analysts have countered that it is really a loose amalgam of relatively traditional pockets of physics, chemistry, and other disciplines that interrelate only weakly. We are developing empirical measures to gauge and visualize the extent and nature of interdisciplinary interchange. Such results speak to research organization, funding, and mechanisms to bolster knowledge transfer. In this study, we address the nature of cross-disciplinary linkages using "science overlay maps" of articles, and their references, that have been categorized into subject categories. We find signs that the rate of increase in nano research is slowing, and that its composition is changing (for one, increasing chemistry-related activity). Our results suggest that nanotechnology research encompasses multiple disciplines that draw knowledge from disciplinarily diverse knowledge sources. Nano research is highly, and increasingly, integrative-but so is much of science these days. Tabulating and mapping nano research activity show a dominant core in materials sciences, broadly defined. Additional analyses and maps show that nano research draws extensively upon knowledge presented in other areas; it is not constricted within narrow silos.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration · Machine Learning in Materials Science

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (45)

Show source-provided references
1. Ahlgren P, Jarneving B, Rousseau R (2003) Requirement for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54(6):550–560. doi:10.1002/asi.1024210.1002/asi.10242 ↗
2. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3):351–374. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-0255-610.1007/s11192-005-0255-6 ↗
3. Chen C (2003) Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization. Springer, London10.1007/978-1-4471-0051-5 ↗
4. Cozzens S, Leydesdorff L (1993) The delineation of specialties in terms of journals using the dynamic journal set of the SCI. Scientometrics 26:135–156. doi:10.1007/BF0201679710.1007/BF02016797 ↗
5. Eto H (2003) Interdisciplinary information input and output of nano-technology project. Scientometrics 58(1):5–33. doi:10.1023/A:102542340664310.1023/A:1025423406643 ↗
6. Glanzel W, Schubert A, Czerwon J-J (1999) An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics 44(3):427–439. doi:10.1007/BF0245848810.1007/BF02458488 ↗
7. Grodal S, Thoma G (2008) Cross-pollination in science and technology: concept mobility in the nanobiotechnology field. Paper presented at the NBER conference on emerging industries: nanotechnology and nanoindicators, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1–2 May 2008
8. Hicks DM, Katz JS (1996) Where is science going? Sci Technol Human Values 21(4):379–406. doi:10.1177/01622439960210040110.1177/016224399602100401 ↗
9. Katz JS, Hicks D (1995) The classification of interdisciplinary journals: a new approach. In: Koenig MED, Bookstein A (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Learned Information, Melford
10. Khushf G (2004) Systems theory and the ethics of human enhancement—a framework for NBIC convergence. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1013:124–149. doi:10.1196/annals.1305.00710.1196/annals.1305.007 ↗
11. Klein JT (1999) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville
12. Leydesdorff L (2006) Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the journal citation reports? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(5):601–613. doi:10.1002/asi.2032210.1002/asi.20322 ↗
13. Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60(2):348–362. doi:10.1002/asi.2096710.1002/asi.20967 ↗
14. Leydesdorff L, Cozzens S, Van den Besselaar P (1994) Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings. Res Policy 23:217–229. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)90054-X10.1016/0048-7333(94)90054-X ↗
15. Loveridge D, Dewick P, Randles S (2008) Converging technologies at the nanoscale: the making of a new world? Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20(1):29–43. doi:10.1080/0953732070172654410.1080/09537320701726544 ↗
16. Meyer M (2006) What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Paper presented at the 2006 technology transfer society conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 27–29 Sept
17. Morillo F, Bordons M, Gomez I (2003) Interdisciplinarity in Science: a tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 54(13):1237–1249. doi:10.1002/asi.1032610.1002/asi.10326 ↗
18. Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solvana V, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Munoz-Fernandez FJ (2004) A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories. Scientometrics 61:129–145. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000037368.31217.3410.1023/B:SCIE.0000037368.31217.34 ↗
19. Moya-Anegon F, Vargas-Quesada B, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Corera-Alvarez E, Munoz-Fernandez FJ, Herrero-Solvana V (2007) Visualizing the marrow of science. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 58(14):2167–2179. doi:10.1002/asi.2068310.1002/asi.20683 ↗
20. National Academies Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, Public Policy (COSEPUP) (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press, Washington
21. National Science and Technology Council (1999) In: Siegel RW, Roco MC (eds) Nanostructure science and technology: a worldwide study. National Science and Technology Council, Washington
22. Porter AL, Rafols I (2008) Science overlay maps: easy-to-use tools to help visualize and track bodies of research, a deeper look at the visualization of scientific discovery in the federal context (a workshop at the national science foundation), Washington, DC, 11–12 Sept 2008
23. Porter AL, Kongthon A, Lu J-C (2002) Research profiling: improving the literature review. Scientometrics 53:351–370. doi:10.1023/A:101487302925810.1023/A:1014873029258 ↗
24. Porter AL, Roessner JD, Cohen AS, Perreault M (2006) Interdisciplinary research—meaning, metrics and nurture. Res Eval 15(3):187–195. doi:10.3152/14715440678177584110.3152/147154406781775841 ↗
25. Porter AL, Cohen AS, Roessner JD, Perreault M (2007) Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics 72(1):117–147. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1700-510.1007/s11192-007-1700-5 ↗
26. Porter AL, Rafols I, Meyer M (2008a) The cognitive geography of nanotechnologies: locating nano-research in the map of science. Paper Presented at the NBER conference on nanotechnology and nanoindicators, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1–2 May 2008
27. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008b) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–728. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y ↗
28. Porter AL, Rafols I Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics (accepted)
29. Porter AL, Roessner JD, Heberger AE How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Res Eval (accepted)
30. Rafols I (2007) Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bionanotechnology: why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected? Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 20(4):395–41210.1080/13511610701760770 ↗
31. Rafols I, Meyer M Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics (forthcoming)
32. Roco MC (2002) Coherence and divergence of megatrends in science and engineering. J Nanopart Res 4(1–2):9–19. doi:10.1023/A:102015702779210.1023/A:1020157027792 ↗
33. Roco MC (2003) Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14(3):337–346. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00068-510.1016/S0958-1669(03)00068-5 ↗
34. Roco MC (2004) Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J 50(5):890–897. doi:10.1002/aic.1008710.1002/aic.10087 ↗
35. Roco MC (2006) Progress in governance of converging technologies integrated from the nanoscale. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1093:1–23. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.00210.1196/annals.1382.002 ↗
36. Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res 10(1):11–29. doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9269-810.1007/s11051-007-9269-8 ↗
37. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology information technology and cognitive science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht10.1007/978-94-017-0359-8 ↗
38. Salton G, McGill MJ (1983) Introduction to modern information retrieval. McGraw-Hill, Auckland
39. Schmidt JC (2008) Tracing interdisciplinarity of converging technologies at the nanoscale: a critical analysis of recent nanotechnosciences. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 20(1):45–63. doi:10.1080/0953732070172657710.1080/09537320701726577 ↗
40. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59:425–465. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.3810.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.38 ↗
41. Schummer J (2007) The globalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70(3):669–692. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0307-110.1007/s11192-007-0307-1 ↗
42. Stirling A (2007) A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface. doi:10.1098/rsif.2007.021310.1098/rsif.2007.0213 ↗
43. Van Raan AFJ (1999) The interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. In: Weingart P, Stehr N (eds) Practising interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
44. Ziegler AS (2006) Regulation: threat to converging technologies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1093:339–349. doi:10.1196/annals.1382.02210.1196/annals.1382.022 ↗
45. Zitt M (2005) Facing diversity of science: a challenge for bibliometric indicators. Measurement 3(1):38–49