Abstract
Given the development in modern science and technology, scientists need interdisciplinary knowledge and collaborations. In the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), more than 59 % of individuals change their disciplinary application codes to pursue interdisciplinary applications for scientific funding. An algorithm that classifies interdisciplinary applications and calculates the diversity of individual research disciplines (DIRD) is proposed based on three-level disciplinary application codes. Using a sample of 37,330 unique individuals at the NSFC from 2000 to 2013, this research analyzed the DIRD of all sponsored individuals and found that DIRDs differ significantly among scientific departments, research areas, and universities. Sponsored individuals prefer not to engage in cross-research-fields or interdisciplinary applications. In addition, top-class universities in China exhibit stronger ability to carry out interdisciplinary research than do other universities. This thorough investigation of interdisciplinary applications in a scientific foundation provides new insights in managing scientific funding.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.
Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Fikret, B. (2000). Linking social and ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cao, C., Li, N., Li, X., & Liu, L. (2013). Reforming China’s S&T system. Science, 341(6145), 460–462.
Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14(1), 70–79.
Choi, S. (2010). Globalization, China’s drive for world-class universities (211 Project) and the challenges of ethnic minority higher education: the case of Yanbian university. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 169–178.
Heimeriks, G. (2012). Interdisciplinarity in biotechnology, genomics and nanotechnology. Science and Public Policy,. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs070.
Huutoniemi, K. (2012). Interdisciplinary accountability in the evaluation of research proposals. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88.
Leydesdorff, L., Rafols, I., & Chen, C. (2013). Interactive overlays of journals and the measurement of interdisciplinarity on the basis of aggregated journal–journal citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573–2586.
Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Macro-level indicators of the relations between research funding and research output. Journal of Informetrics, 3(4), 353–362.
Metzger, N., & Zare, R. N. (1999). Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science, 283(5402), 642–643.
Roebber, P. J., & Schultz, D. M. (2011). Peer review, program officers and science funding. PLoS One, 6(4), e18680.
Sandström, U. (2009). Research quality and diversity of funding: A model for relating research money to output of research. Scientometrics, 79(2), 341–349.
van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.
Vanderelst, D., & Speybroeck, N. (2013). Scientometrics reveals funding priorities in medical research policy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 240–247.
Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.
Wu, J., & Ding, X.-H. (2013). Author name disambiguation in scientific collaboration and mobility cases. Scientometrics, 96(3), 683–697.
Xie, Y. (2014). “Undemocracy”: Inequalities in science. Science, 344(6186), 809–810.
Xie, Y., Zhang, C., & Lai, Q. (2014). China’s rise as a major contributor to science and technology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Yang, J., Vannier, M. W., Wang, F., Deng, Y., Ou, F., Bennett, J., et al. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 318–324.
Zhang, H., Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2013). Building global-class universities: Assessing the impact of the 985 Project. Research Policy, 42(3), 765–775.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71373194, 71202109) and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2014T70143). It was also partly supported by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities”. The authors also warmly thanks the editor and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 7.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, J., Jin, M. & Ding, XH. Diversity of individual research disciplines in scientific funding. Scientometrics 103, 669–686 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1549-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1549-y