Multidisciplinary cognitive content of nanoscience and nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This article examines the cognitive evolution and disciplinary diversity of nanotechnology as expressed through the terminology used in titles of nano journal articles. The analysis is based on the NanoBank bibliographic database of 287,106 nano articles published between 1981 and 2004. We perform multifaceted analyses of title words, focusing on 100 most frequent terms. Hierarchical clustering of title terms reveals three distinct time periods of cognitive development of nano research: formative (1981-1990), early (1991-1998), and current (after 1998). Early period is characterized by the introduction of thin film deposition techniques, while the current period is characterized by the increased focus on carbon nanotube and nanoparticle research. We introduce a method to identify disciplinary components of nanotechnology. It shows that the nano research is being carried out in a number of diverse parent disciplines. Currently only 5% of articles are published in dedicated nano-only journals. We find that some 85% of nano research today is multidisciplinary. Hierarchical clustering of disciplinary components reveals that the cognitive content of current nanoscience can be divided into nine clusters. Some clusters account for a large fraction of nano research and are identified with such parent disciplines as the condensed matter and applied physics, materials science, and analytical chemistry. Other clusters represent much smaller parts of nano research, but are as cognitively distinct. In the decreasing order of size, these fields are: polymer science, biotechnology, general chemistry, surface science, and pharmacology. Cognitive content of research published in nano-only journals is closest to nano research published in condensed matter and applied physics journals.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000
2. Bassecoulard E, Lelu A, Zitt M (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–88010.1007/s11192-007-0315-1 ↗
3. Berube DM (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst
4. Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–32510.1007/BF02457417 ↗
5. Callon M, Courtial JP, Turner WA, Bauin S (1983) From translations to problematic networks: an introduction to co-word analysis. Soc Sci Inf 22(2):191–23510.1177/053901883022002003 ↗
6. Darby MR, Zucker LG (2003) Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry into nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper, No. 9825
7. Glänzel W, Meyer M, Du Plessis M, Thijs B, Magerman T, Schlemmer B et al (2003) Nanotechnology: analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Report of Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven
8. Hayles NK (2004) Connecting the quantum dots: nanotechscience and culture. In: Hayles NK (ed) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Bristol, pp 11–2610.2307/j.ctv36xvx1g.4 ↗
9. Heinze T (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(4):427–445
10. Huang C, Chen HC, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: county, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanopart Res 6(4):325–35410.1007/s11051-004-4117-6 ↗
11. Huang C, Notten A, Rasters N (2011) Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. J Technol Transfer 36:145–17210.1007/s10961-009-9149-8 ↗
12. Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58(3):507–52710.1023/B:SCIE.0000006877.45467.a7 ↗
13. Jacoby M (2000) New tools for tiny jobs. Chem Eng News 78(42):33–35
14. Jain AK, Dubes RC (1988) Algorithms for clustering data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
15. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
16. Latour B, Woolgar S (1986) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press, Princeton
17. Leydesdorff L (1989) Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Res Policy 18:209–22310.1016/0048-7333(89)90016-4 ↗
18. Leydesdorff L, Zhou P (2007) Nanotechnology as a field of science: its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics 70(3):693–71310.1007/s11192-007-0308-0 ↗
19. Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Lin Y, Larson CA, Roco MC (2008) A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology literature: 1976–2004. J Nanopart Res 10(Supplement 1):3–2210.1007/s11051-008-9473-1 ↗
20. Lucio-Arias D, Leydesdorff L (2007) Knowledge emergence in scientific communication: from “fullerenes” to “nanotubes”. Scientometrics 70(3):603–63210.1007/s11192-007-0304-4 ↗
21. Meyer M (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–18310.1023/A:1010572914033 ↗
22. Meyer M, Bhattacharya S (2004) Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: an exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics 61(3):443–45610.1023/B:SCIE.0000045120.04489.80 ↗
23. Meyer M, Persson O (1998) Nanotechnology—interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2):195–20510.1007/BF02458355 ↗
24. Milburn C (2004) Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as science. In: Hayles NK (ed) Nanoculture: implications of the new technoscience. Intellect Books, Portland, pp 109–12910.2307/j.ctv36xvx1g.7 ↗
25. Milojević S (2009) Big science, nano science?: mapping the evolution and socio-cognitive structure of nanoscience/nanotechnology using mixed methods. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles
26. Milojević S (2010) Modes of collaboration in modern science: beyond power laws and preferential attachment. J Am Soc Inf Sci 61(7):1410–142310.1002/asi.21331 ↗
27. Mody CCM (2006) Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technol Cult 47:56–8010.1353/tech.2006.0085 ↗
28. Monthioux M, Serp P, Flahaut E, Razafinimanana M, Laurent C, Peigney A et al (2007) Introduction to carbon nanotubes. In: Bhushan B (ed) Springer handbook of nanotechnology. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–11210.1007/978-3-540-29857-1_3 ↗
29. Noyons ECM, Buter RK, van Raan AFJ, Schmoch U, Heinze T, Hinze S et al (2003) Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe: nanoscience and nanotechnology. Leiden University, Leiden
30. NSF (National Science Foundation) (1997) “Partnership in nanotechnology” program announcement. Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf9820
31. Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? J Nanopart Res 11:1023–104110.1007/s11051-009-9607-0 ↗
32. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–72810.1007/s11051-007-9266-y ↗
33. Provalis Research (2005) WordStat: content analysis module for SIMSTAT & QDA Minder: User’s Guide, from http://www.provalisresearch.com/Documents/wordstat51.pdf ]
34. Rafols I, Meyer M (2007) How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics 70(3):633–65010.1007/s11192-007-0305-3 ↗
35. Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res 10:11–2910.1007/s11051-007-9269-8 ↗
36. Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the national nanotechnology initiative at 10 years. J Nanopart Res 13:427–44510.1007/s11051-010-0192-z ↗
37. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation, Arlington
38. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance: integrating from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 4:281–29510.1023/A:1021152023349 ↗
39. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanopart Res 7:1–1310.1007/s11051-004-2336-5 ↗
40. Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: summary of international study. J Nanopart Res 13:897–91910.1007/s11051-011-0275-5 ↗
41. Schummer J (2004a) Interdisciplinary issues in nanoscale research. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 9–20
42. Schummer J (2004b) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425–46310.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.38 ↗
43. Smith DL (1995) Thin-film deposition: principles & practice. McGraw-Hill, New York
44. Toumey C (2009) Plenty of room, plenty of history. Nat Nanotechnol 4:783–78410.1038/nnano.2009.357 ↗
45. Toumey C (2010) In the footsteps of biotech. Nat Nanotechnol 5:47510.1038/nnano.2010.136 ↗
46. Wajcman J (2008) Emergent technosciences. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 813–816
47. Weber RP (1990) Basic content analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park10.4135/9781412983488 ↗
48. Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10:981–98610.1007/s11051-008-9360-9 ↗
49. Zucker LG, Darby MR (2005) Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: initial results and NanoBank. NBER Working Paper 11181
50. Zucker LG, Darby MR (2007) Nanobank Data Description release 2.0 (beta-test). UCLA Center for International Science, Technology and Cultural Policy and Nanobank, Los Angeles, 17 Jan 2007–2 Feb 2009
51. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Furner J, Liu RC, Ma H (2007) Minerva unbound: knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Res Policy 36(6):850–86310.1016/j.respol.2007.02.007 ↗