Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study addresses whether interdisciplinarity is a prominent feature of climate research by means of a co-citation analysis of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The debate on interdisciplinarity and bibliometric measures is reviewed to operationalize the contested notion of interdisciplinarity. The results, based on 6417 references of the 96 most frequently used journals, demonstrate that the IPCC assessment of climate change is best characterized by its multidisciplinarity where the physical, biological, bodily and societal dimensions are clearly separated. Although a few fields and journals integrate a wide variety of disciplines, integration occurs mainly between related disciplines (narrow interdisciplinarity) which indicate an overall disciplinary basis of climate research. It is concluded that interdisciplinarity is not a prominent feature of climate research. The significance of this finding is explored, given that the problem scope of climate change necessitates interdisciplinarity. Ways to promote interdisciplinarity are suggested by way of conclusion.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala, S. (1998a). Context and early origins of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change, 39(4), 605–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawala, S. (1998b). Structural and process history of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climatic Change, 39(4), 621–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balaban, A., & Klein, D. (2006). Is chemistry ‘The central science’? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets. Scientometrics, 69(3), 615–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjurström, A., Polk, M. (2011). Physical and economic bias in climate change research: A scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change.

  • Bolin, B. (2007). A History of the science and politics of climate change: The role of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 437–456). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., & Zulueta, M. (1997). Comparison of research team activity in two biomedical fields. Scientometrics, 40(3), 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. (2005). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Schubert, A. (2003). A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980–1999. Scientometrics, 58(1), 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, C., & Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Futures, 36(4), 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, H. (2000). Epistemic encounters: Intra- and interdisciplinary analyses of human action, planning practices and technological change. Dissertation, Göteborg University, Göteborg.

  • Buanes, A., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Building bridges: Institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures, 41(7), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camic, C., Joas, H. (2003). The dialogical turn: New roles for sociology in the postdisciplinary age. New York: Rowman/Littlefield.

  • Carolan, M. (2008). The bright- and blind-spots of science: Why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. Critical Sociology, 34(5), 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, S. (2001). Feminism and performance: A post-disciplinary couple. Theatre Research International, 26(2), 145–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, M., & Okereke, C. (2010). Policy responses to rapid climate change: An epistemological critique of dominant approaches. Global Environment Change, 20(1), 121–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J., & Rothman, D. (1998). Climate change and sustainable development: Towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change, 8(4), 341–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind: The Anthropocene. Nature, 415, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demeritt, D. (2001). The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 307–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels, A., & Ruschenburg, T. (2008). The uneven spread of global science: Patterns of international collaboration in global environmental change research. Science and Public Policy, 35(5), 347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels, A., Ruschenburg, T., & Weingart, P. (2005). Recent internationalization of global environmental change research in Germany and the US. Scientometrics, 62(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, J. (1998). Historical perspectives on climate change. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1993). Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: The coming of science and technology studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In C. Robert (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science, management of sustainability (pp. 137–152). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. American Scholar, 49(2), 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Stockholm: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, I., Bordons, M., Fernández, M., & Méndez, A. (1996). Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity. Scientometrics, 35(2), 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, G. (2000). The assembly of geophysics: Scientific disciplines as frameworks of consensus. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31(3), 259–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, L., & Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 28(4), 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T., & Sime, J. (2004). Living on the border: Knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2001a). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  • IPCC. (2001b). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. White (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2001c). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, & C. A. Johnson (Eds.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007b). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • IPCC. (2007c). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jacobs, J., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Schoon, M., & Börner, K. (2006). Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimension of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 240–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jappe, A. (2007). Explaining international collaboration in global environmental change research. Scientometrics, 71(3), 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decisionmaking. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), The societal framework. Human choice and climate change (Vol. 1). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. History, theory and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwa, C. (2001). The rise and fall of weather modification: Changes in American attitudes towards technology, nature, and society. In C. Miller & P. Edwards (Eds.), Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwa, C. (2005). Local ecologies, global science: Discourses and strategies of the international geosphere-biosphere programme. Social Studies of Science, 35, 923–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, H. (1982). Climate, history and the modern world. London: Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K. (2008). Environmental change and globalization: Double exposures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhard, J., Lucking, H., & Schechheimer, H. (2006). Expert knowledge, mode-2 and scientific disciplines: Two contrasting views. Science and Public Policy, 33(5), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 317–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyedesdorff, L. (2007a). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyedesdorff, L. (2007b). Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the science citation index and the social science citation index. Scientometrics, 71(3), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (2005). Visualizing the intellectual structure in urban studies: A journal co-citation analysis (1992–2002). Scientometrics, 62(3), 385–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, E., & Rayner, S. (2001). Role of the research standpoint in integrating global-scale and local-scale research. Climate Research, 19, 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Max-Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. (2001). Hybrid management: boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime. Science Technology Human Values, 26(4), 478–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mobjörk, M. (2009). Crossing boundaries. The framing of transdisciplinarity. Centre for housing and urban research series, report number 64. Västerås: Mälardalen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1237–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moya-Anegón, F., Vargas-Quesada, B., Herrero-Solana, V., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Corera-Álvarez, E., & Munoz-Fernández, F. (2004). A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the co citation of classes and categories. Scientometrics, 61(1), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munasinghe, M. (2001). Exploring the linkages between climate change and sustainable development: A challenge for transdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 5(1), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, P. (2006). Climate for change: Non-state actors and the global politics of the greenhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, B., Crumley, C., Hassan, N., Lambin, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Underdal, A., et al. (2005). A conceptual template for integrative human—environment research. Global Environmental Change, 15, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, polity press. Cambridge: Malden.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, S., Hulme, M., Turnpenny, J., & Screen, J. (2010). Disciplines, geography and gender in the framing of climate change. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

  • Pielke, R., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Bringing society back into the climate debate. Population and Environment, 26(3), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, 37, 1159–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., Cohen, A., Roessner, J., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11(5), 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, J. (1994). An investigation of research collaboration in the sciences through the philosophical transactions 1901–1991. Scientometrics, 29(2), 219–238.

    Article  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 

  • Rayner, S., & Malone, E. (Eds.). (1998). The societal framework. Human choice and climate change. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Parks, B. (2006). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saloranta, T. (2001). Post-normal science and the global climate change issue. Climatic Change, 50, 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(5), 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebenhüner, B. (2002). How do scientific assessments learn? Part 1 Conceptual framework and case study of the IPCC. Environmental Science & Policy, 5, 411–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, C. (2003). Interdisciplinarity and knowledge inflow/outflow structure among science and engineering research in Korea. Scientometrics, 58(1), 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanhill, G. (2001). The growth of climate change science: A scientometric study. Climatic Change, 48(2–3), 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, H., & Stehr, N. (2000). Climate change in perspective. Nature, 405, 615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. (2000). The interdisciplinary nature of science: Theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1997). From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.). (2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Gunilla A. Olsson, Karl Bruckmeier, Tom R. Burns, Jan Teorell, Marie Demker, Per Knutsson and Stina Edqvist are acknowledged for comments and support. The Centre for Environment and Sustainability at Göteborg University is acknowledged for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Ecology, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, SE 40530, Göteborg, Sweden

    Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk

Authors
  1. Andreas Bjurström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Merritt Polk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Bjurström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjurström, A., Polk, M. Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Scientometrics 87, 525–550 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0356-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0356-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation