Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A network analysis of interdisciplinary research relationships: the Korean government’s R&D grant program

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines network topologies of interdisciplinary research relationships in science and technology (S&T) and investigates the relational linkages between the interdisciplinary relations and the quality of research performance. A network analysis was performed to evaluate the General Research Grant (GRG) program, an interdisciplinary research funding program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF); the dataset covered the 2002–2004 period. The analytical results reveal the hidden network structure of interdisciplinary research relationships and demonstrate that the quality of research performance might be enhanced not only by interdependent pressures placed on various research fields but also by accumulated research capabilities that are relatively difficult to access and reproduce by other research fields.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. With regard to the pressure for interdisciplinarity by funding agencies, Bohme et al. (1976) ignited a debate by proposing the concept of “finalization in science,” which refers to the actual influence of societal (social, political, and institutional) interventions on scientific progress. However, we do not specifically investigate the following issues in this paper: how much funding policies actually influence and can influence science and to what extent science is still an autonomous system. Such a review of the scholarly debate around “finalization in science” is well documented in Schroyer (1984).

  2. This study employs Freeman’s (1979) concept of centrality to analyze the interdisciplinary network of interdisciplinary relations.

References

  • Altmann, K. G., & Gorman, G. E. (1998). The usefulness of impact factors in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals. Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 22(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1992). Specialization and size of technological activities in industrial countries: The analysis of patent data. Research Policy, 21, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A, 311(3–4), 590–614.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohme, G., van den Daele, W., & Krohn, W. (1976). Finalization in science. Social Science Information, 15(2/3), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1993). The Science Strategy Index. Scientometrics, 26(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Fernandez, M. T., & Gomez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Gomez, I., Mendez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 24(2), 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M. S. (2007). Partner or perish? Universities as agents of change. AAAS-CSPO S&T policy review: highlights of the 2007 forum on S&T policy. http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/070503aaas.html.

  • Corley, E., Melkers, J., & Johns, K. (2006). Layered and evolving networks: Innovative evaluation methods for interdisciplinary research in university-based research centers. Paper presented at The Atlanta Conference on S&T Policy, Atlanta, GA.

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durland, M. M., & Fredericks, K. A. (Eds.). (2006). Social network analysis in program evaluation: New directions for evaluation, 107, Fall 2005. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass and the American Evaluation Association.

  • Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2003). A general framework for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarifications. Social Network, 1, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, T. C., Tan, S. B., & Soo, K. C. (2006). The journal impact factor: Too much of an impact? Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 35(12), 911–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havemann, F., Heinz, M., & Kretschmer, H. (2006). Collaboration and distances between German immunological institutes—a tend analysis. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, 1(1), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Traore, N., & Godin, B. (1996). An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Education, 32(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). “Betweenness centrality” as an indicator of the “interdisciplinarity” of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1582–1597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures. Current Science, 89(12), 1990–1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(26), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell, B. L. (2005). Evaluating social capital in interorganizational alliances: An application of social network analysis. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Park, H. W., & Jankowski, N. (2008). A hyperlink network analysis of citizen blogs in South Korean politics. Javnost–The Public, 15(2), 57–74. A special issue on methodological issues in conducting online political communication research. http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/media/datoteke/park-jankowski.pdf.

  • Park, H. W., & Lee, Y. (2008). The Korean presidential election of 2007: Five years on from the “internet election”. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 7(1), 1–4. http://www.eastasia.at/download/park.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. W., So, M.-H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Longitudinal trends of networked research systemness in South Korea using the triple-helix indicator. In Proceedings from the Triple Helix 2008 conference. http://www.triple-helix-7.org.

  • Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science, 10(1), 95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonbaert, D., & Roelants, G. (1996). Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: Quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Tropical Medicine and International Health, 1(6), 739–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroyer, T. (1984). On finalization in science. Theory and Society, 13(5), 715–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D., & Vedres, B. (2005). Social times of network spaces: Network sequences and foreign investment in Hungary. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper (No. 05-06-023). Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute.

  • Tarnow, E. (2002). Coauthorship in physics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonortas, N. S., & Malerba, F. (2005). Using social networks methodology to evaluate research and development programs. Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

  • Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2002). Computer network use, collaboration structures and productivity. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 433–458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved June 10, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://tigger.uic.edu/~jwalsh/Collab.html.

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration, Kwandong University, 522 Naegok-dong, Gangneung-si, Gangwon-do, 210-701, South Korea

    Chang Hoon Yang

  2. Department of Media and Communication, YeungNam University, 214-1 Dae-dong, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 712-749, South Korea

    Han Woo Park

  3. Division of Future Strategy, National Research Foundation of Korea, 165 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 305-350, South Korea

    Jungeun Heo

Authors
  1. Chang Hoon Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han Woo Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jungeun Heo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jungeun Heo.

Additional information

Han Woo Park is considered as co-first author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, C.H., Park, H.W. & Heo, J. A network analysis of interdisciplinary research relationships: the Korean government’s R&D grant program. Scientometrics 83, 77–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0157-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0157-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation