Abstract
Nanotechnology has been presented in the policy discourse as an intrinsically interdisciplinary field, requiring collaborations among researchers with different backgrounds, and specific funding schemes supporting knowledge-integration activities. Early bibliometric studies supported this interdisciplinary vision (Meyer & Persson, 1998), but recent results suggest that nanotechnology is (yet) a mixed bag with various mono-disciplinary subfields (Schummer, 2004). We have reexamined the issue at the research project level, carrying out five case studies in molecular motors, a specialty of bionanotechnology. Relying both in data from interviews and bibliometric indicators, we have developed a multidimensional analysis (Sanz-Menéndez et al., 2001) in order to explore the extent and types of cross-disciplinary practices in each project. We have found that there is a consistent high degree of cross-disciplinarity in the cognitive practices of research (i.e., use of references and instrumentalities) but a more erratic and narrower degree in the social dimensions (i.e., affiliation and researchers’ background). This suggests that cross-disciplinarity is an eminently epistemic characteristic and that bibliometric indicators based on citations and references capture more accurately the generation of cross-disciplinary knowledge than approaches tracking co-authors’ disciplinary affiliations. In the light of these findings we raise the question whether policies focusing on formal collaborations between laboratories are the most appropriate to facilitate cross-disciplinary knowledge acquisition and generation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BBSRC (2005), Engineering and Biological Systems Committee (EBS). List of priority areas, http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/areas/ebs/themes/main_tooltech.html#bn accessed 14-09-2006.
Becher, T., Trowler, P. R. (2001), Academic Tribes and Territories, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK (2nd ed.).
Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Gómez, I. (2004), Analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In: H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 437–456.
Bourke, P., Butler, L. (1998), Institutions and the map of science: matching university departments and fields of research, Research Policy, 26: 711–718.
Braun, T., Schubert, A. (2003), A quantitative view on the coming of age of Interdisciplinarity in the sciences, 1980–1999, Scientometrics, 58: 183–189.
Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., Williams, R. (2004), Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme, Futures, 36: 457–470.
Crane, D. (1972), Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
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, Sage, London.
Grigg, L., Johnston, R., Milsom, N. (2003), Emerging Issues for Cross-disciplinary Research. Conceptual and Empirical Dimensions, Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.
Hicks, D. (1992), Instrumentation, interdisciplinary knowledge, and research performance in spin glass and superfluid helium three, Science, Technology and Human Values, 17(2): 180–204.
Hollingsworth, R., Hollingsworth, E. J. (2000), Major discoveries and biomedical research organizations: perspectives on interdisciplinarity, nurturing leadership, and integrated structure and cultures. In: P. Weingart, N. Stehr (Eds), Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 215–244.
Klein, J. T. (1990), Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory, and Practice, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, E. (1998), The triple helix as a model for innovation studies, Science and Public Policy, 25: 195–203.
Malsch, I. (1997), Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts’ Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-Areas, Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Metzger, N., Zare, N. (1999), Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality, Science, 283(5402): 642–643.
Meyer, M., Persson, O. (1998), Nanotechnology — Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application, Scientometrics, 42: 195–205.
Meyer, M. (2007), What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency, Scientometrics, 70(3) [this issue].
Morillo, F., Bordons, M., Gomez, I. (2001), An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 51: 203–222.
OECD (2005) A Framework for Biotechnology Statistics. Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators, OECD, Paris, (DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2005) 8/FINAL)
Porter, A. L., Chubin, D. E. (1985), An indicator of cross-disciplinary research, Scientometrics, 8: 161–176.
Price, D. J. De Solla (1984), The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation, Research Policy, 13(1): 3–20.
Rinia, E. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Bruins, E. P. W., Van Buren, H. G., Van Raan, A. F. J. (2002), Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics, 54: 347–362.
Roco, M., Bainbridge, W. S. (2003), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Sanz-Menéndez, L., Bordons, M., Zulueta, M. A. (2001), Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: its measure in three different research areas, Research Evaluation, 10(1): 47–58.
Shinn, T., Joerges, B. (2002), The transverse science and technology culture: dynamics and roles of research-technologies, Social Science Information, 41(2): 207–251.
Schild, I., Sörlin, S. (2005), Mer tvärvetenskap? [More interdisciplinarity?] In: S. Sörlin (Ed.), I den absoluta frontlinjen. En bok om forskningsstiftelserna, konkurrenskraften och politikens möjligheter. Bokförlaget Nya Doxa, Nora, Sweden, pp. 319–368.
Schliwa, M. (Ed.) (2003), Molecular Motors, Wiley, Weinheim, Germany.
Schummer, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology, Scientometrics, 59: 425–465.
Van Leeuwen, T., Tijssen, R. (2000), Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows, Research Evaluation, 9(3): 183–187.
Van Raan, A. F. J (2000), The interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. In: P. Weingart, N. Stehr (Eds), Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 66–78.
Weingart, P., Stehr, N. (Eds) Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Wood, S., Jones, R., Geldart, A. (2003), The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rafols, I., Meyer, M. How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics 70, 633–650 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0305-3
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0305-3