Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments commonly support scientific research integrating knowledge of various areas and fields, expecting this to lead to disruptive research. However, empirical evidence is relatively scant regarding whether knowledge-integrated research with government funding disrupts sciences. This study explores the quality of government-funded research in terms of knowledge integration and disruption. Knowledge integration is measured as the degree to which a paper combines different research subjects in three dimensions of diversity—variety, balance, and disparity. Disruption is calculated based on paper citation networks, thereby capturing how the paper challenges existing research streams and provides new directions of scientific research. Our analysis demonstrates that the relationship between knowledge integration and disruption varies by government funding sources, using bibliometric data from US federally funded research published between 1975 and 2005 in biomedical and life sciences. The empirical findings show that: (1) knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by funding agencies of the same government department rather than of different government departments; and (2) while the effect of knowledge integration on long-term citations is positive and becomes stronger for the studies funded by homogeneous government funding sources, its effect on short-term citations is negative regardless of the source of government funding. These results highlight the potential value of knowledge-integrated research that is hard to capture through short-term performance, which holds significant policy implications for current practices in research evaluations that are driven by short-term evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak, P., Tang, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. (1987). Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters, 59(4), 381–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., & Riedl, C. (2016). Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, 62(10), 2765–2783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., & Jordan, P. (2011). Metrics associated with NIH funding: A high-level view. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(4), 423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. (1993). Who governs intermediary agencies? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), 135–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal–agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brillouin, L. (1956). Science and Information Theory. Academic Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science, the Endless Frontier. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coletti, M. H., & Bleich, H. L. (2001). Medical subject headings used to search the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 8(4), 317–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. B., Mewes, M. O., Andrews, M. R., van Druten, N. J., Durfee, D. S., Kurn, D. M., & Ketterle, W. (1995). Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms. Physical Review Letters, 75(22), 3969–3973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., & Monette, G. (1992). Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417), 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63(3), 791–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1952). A study of interaction and consensus in different sized groups. American Sociological Review, 17(3), 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbe, J. M. (2007). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, K. (2014). Social and natural sciences differ in their strategies, adapted to work for knowledge landscapes. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knecht, W. S., & Marcetich, J. (2005). New research support MeSH headings introduced mid-year to 2005 MeSH. NLM Technical Bulletin, 344, e12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. N., Ganguli, I., Gaule, P., Guinan, E., & Lakhani, K. R. (2021). Engineering serendipity: When does knowledge sharing lead to knowledge production? Strategic Management Journal, 42(6), 1215–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 126–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). Conclave in the Tower of Babel: How peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawani, S. M. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientometrics, 9(1–2), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2013). Citation analysis with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) using the Web of Knowledge: A new routine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(5), 1076–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Rotolo, D., & Rafols, I. (2012). Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the Medical Subject Headings of PubMed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(11), 2239–2253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019). Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. Journal of Informetrics, 13, 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., Azoulay, P., & Sampat, B. N. (2017). The applied value of public investments in biomedical research. Science, 356(6333), 78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Sage.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W., & Meagher, L. (2013). The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manners, G. E., Jr. (1975). Another look at group size, group problem solving, and member consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 715–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2015). The Entrepeneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths. PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2007). Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2020a). Academic Research and Development. In Science and Engineering Indicators (NSB-2020a-2). National Science Foundation.

  • National Science Board. (2020b). Science and Engineering Indicators: The State of U.S. Science and Engineering (NSB-2020-1). National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2020a). Government Budget Allocations for R&D on Health. https://stats.oecd.org

  • OECD. (2020b). Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D by Sector of Performance and Source of Funds. https://stats.oecd.org

  • Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C. R. (1982). Diversity: Its measurement, decomposition, apportionment and analysis. Sankhyā: the Indian Journal of Statistics Series A, 44(1), 1–22.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redhead, C. S., Bodie, A., Bagalman, E., Heisler, E. J., Johnson, J. A., Lister, S. A., & Sarata, A. K. (2017). Public Health Service Agencies: Overview and Funding (FY2016 FY2018). Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, J. (2013). Looking for the impact of peer review: Does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact? Scientometrics, 94(1), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (2018). The repeat rate: From Hirschman to Stirling. Scientometrics, 116(1), 645–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S. (2019). Sustainable development of science and scientists: Academic training in life science labs. Research Policy, 48(3), 676–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, H., Kim, K., & Kogler, D. F. (2022). Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge. PLoS ONE, 17(7), e0271678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E. (2003). Principals, agents and research programmes. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, T. W., & Stier, J. C. (2000). The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences: A forestry case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(5), 476–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (1998). On the economics and analysis of diversity. Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), Electronic Working Papers Series, 28, 1–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Alexander, J. (2013). Evaluating transformative research programmes: A case study of the NSF Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme. Research Evaluation, 22(3), 187–197.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Is there a relationship between research sponsorship and publication impact? An analysis of funding acknowledgments in nanotechnology papers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Replication data for: Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JPWNNK

  • Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (Grant No. 2021R1A6A3A13039814).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Science and Technology Policy, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-Ro, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea

    Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim

Authors
  1. Seolmin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. So Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to So Young Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm no conflict of interests to declare for this study.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Kim, S.Y. Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences. Scientometrics 128, 3257–3282 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04706-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04706-5

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation