Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Macro-level domains of the science system, usually referred to as STM and SSH disciplines, have often been contrasted from various perspectives, regarding the characteristic composition of their publication channels, referencing or communication practices, and the related consequences in research evaluation. It is also long been conjectured that social science fields (along with the humanities) are more multidisciplinary than natural science fields, regarding their patterns of scholarly communication (“multidisciplinarity thesis”). The main goal of the study reported in this paper is twofold: (1) to revisit the differences in multidisciplinarity between the SSH versus STM domain, via a long-term longitudinal survey including the most recent trends, and (2) to utilize, for this task, state-of-the-art metrics and models of Interdisciplinary Research, taking into account their limitations, that is, the data sources that most naturally feed these models (typically the Web of Science). Our conclusions provides further confirmation, from the perspective of multidisciplinarity, that the concepts of SSH and STM are mainly tools for communication, rather than empirically valid constructs.

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

  • Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, J., Porter, A. L., Borrego, M., Tran, E., & Teutonico, R. (2013). Facilitating social and natural science cross-disciplinarity: Assessing the human and social dynamics program. Research Evaluation, 22(2), 134–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2010). The historical evolution of interdisciplinarity: 1900–2008. In 11th International conference on science and technology indicators (p. 100).

  • Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35, 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, I. (2001). Social assistance regimes: a cluster analysis. Journal of European social policy, 11(2), 165–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2013). Document categories in the ISI Web of Knowledge: Misunderstanding the social sciences? Scientometrics, 94(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473-496).

  • Hicks, D. (2006). The dangers of partial bibliometric evaluation in the social sciences. Economia politica, 23(2), 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, K., Rafols, I. (2017-03-06). Interdisciplinarity in Research Evaluation. Oxford Handbooks Online. Retrieved 14 May 2017.

  • Larivière, V., Archambault, É., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagné, É. (2006). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, J. M., Thelwall, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2011). Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1118–1129.

    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., 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 Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2573–2586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & 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 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012a). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012b). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Porter, A. L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1871–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogerson, P. (2001). Statistical methods for geography. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H., & Crane, D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: An examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, 1(5–6), 445–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soós, S., & Kampis, G. (2011). Towards a typology of research performance diversity: the case of top Hungarian players. Scientometrics, 87(2), 357–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soós, S., & Kampis, G. (2012). Beyond the basemap of science: mapping multiple structures in research portfolios: evidence from Hungary. Scientometrics, 93(3), 869–891.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    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 

  • 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 work was supported by the European Commission under the FP7 Grant No. 613202 (IMPACT-EV project).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Science Policy and Scientometrics, Library and Information Centre of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA), Budapest, Hungary

    Sándor Soós, Zsófia Vida & András Schubert

Authors
  1. Sándor Soós
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zsófia Vida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. András Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sándor Soós.

Appendix

Appendix

Annual trends in the percentage share of references to serials in all references to the last 5 years.

Sciences

See Figs. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Emergency Medicine

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Mathematical Physics

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Nanoscience and Technology

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Soil Science

Full size image
Fig. 11
figure 11

Spectroscopy

Full size image

Social sciences

See Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Economics

Full size image
Fig. 13
figure 13

Information and Library Science

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Political Science

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Social Psychology

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Sociology

Full size image

Arts and humanities

See Figs. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21.

Fig. 17
figure 17

Architecture

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

History and Philosophy of Science

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Music

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Poetry

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Religion

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soós, S., Vida, Z. & Schubert, A. Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction. Scientometrics 114, 795–822 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2589-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2589-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation