图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2022 , Vol. 66 >Issue 21: 132 - 144

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.21.014

综述述评

交叉科学测度理论、进展与展望

  • 熊文靓 ,
  • 付慧真
展开
  • 浙江大学公共管理学院 杭州 310058
熊文靓,博士研究生。

收稿日期: 2022-04-24

  修回日期: 2022-07-14

  网络出版日期: 2022-11-25

基金资助

本文系国家自然科学基金青年项目"跨学科性对知识生产影响力的作用机制研究——基于气候变化领域"（项目编号：71804163）和浙江大学重大基础理论研究专项"跨学科性研究理论与绩效评价方法体系构建"（项目编号：16ZDJC003）研究成果之一。

收起

Theory, Research Progress and Prospect of Interdisciplinary Research Measurement

  • Xiong Wenjing ,
  • Fu Huizhen
Expand
  • School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058

Received date: 2022-04-24

  Revised date: 2022-07-14

  Online published: 2022-11-25

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 交叉科学是当今各国政府和科技管理部门关注的重要战略议题，随着交叉科学研究成果的大规模涌现，如何评估交叉科学研究成果是科学管理的重难点之一。研究旨在为研究者与科研管理者谨慎开发和应用交叉科学研究成果的测度指标提供参考，促进交叉科学的评价与管理。[方法/过程] 交叉科学测度指标是交叉科学评价的核心要素，以交叉科学基本特征与交叉科学测度理论来源为二维分析框架，系统性地揭示交叉科学测度指标的理论脉络、不同维度的分布情况以及应用现状，展望交叉科学测度指标发展的潜在方向。[结果/结论] 交叉科学研究的测度指标在不同历史时期借鉴并融合了生物学、信息科学、网络科学、经济学、物理学等多学科理论与方法，经历了由单一维度指标向综合性多维度指标发展的渐进过程，2000年后迎来大发展期，迄今为止已形成40余项指标，覆盖多样性、均衡性、差异性、凝聚性、创新性和协同性等交叉科学的不同特征，并通过实证数据发现具有理论开创性的测度指标具有更高的影响力。

关键词： 交叉科学; 测度理论; 测度指标; 科研评价; 跨学科性

本文引用格式

熊文靓 , 付慧真 . 交叉科学测度理论、进展与展望[J]. 图书情报工作, 2022 , 66(21) : 132 -144 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2022.21.014

Abstract

[Purpose/Significance] Interdisciplinary research, an important strategic issue, has gradually attracted widespread attention of governments and science and technology management departments all over the world. With the large-scale emergence of interdisciplinary research, the evaluation of interdisciplinary research has become one of the most difficult issues in scientific management. The interdisciplinary research indicators are the core elements of the evaluation. The purpose of this research is to provide references for researchers, scientific research managers to prudently develop and apply measurement indicators of interdisciplinary research, and promote the evaluation and management of interdisciplinary science.[Method/Process] Interdisciplinary measurement indicators are the core elements of interdisciplinary evaluation. This study took the basic characteristics of the interdisciplinary research and the theoretical sources of the interdisciplinary research measurement as a two-dimensional analysis framework, systematically revealing the theoretical context, different dimensions and the application of the interdisciplinary research measurement indicators, and prospected the potential direction of the development of interdisciplinary research measurement indicators.[Result/Conclusion] This study found that interdisciplinary research measurement indicators have studied and integrated multidisciplinary theories and methods such as biology science, information science, network science, economics, physics and other disciplines in different historical periods, presenting a gradual process of the development from single-dimensional indicators to multi-dimensional indicators. Interdisciplinary measurement research has developed rapidly since 2000. So far more than 40 indicators have been formed, including different characteristics of interdisciplinary research such as diversity, balance, disparity, coherence, innovation, and synergy, and this paper finds the measurement indicators with theoretical groundbreaking present higher influence by empirical data.

Key words： interdisciplinary; measurement theory; measurement indicators; scientific research evaluation; interdisciplinarity

参考文献

[1] 刘仲林. 交叉科学时代的交叉研究[J]. 科学学研究, 1993, 11(2):9-16.
[2] National Academy of Sciences. Facilitating interdisciplinary research[M]. Washington, D.C.:National Academies Press, 2005.
[3] ERC:European Research Council[EB/OL].[2021-12-02]. https://erc.europa.eu.
[4] DFG-Deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft[EB/OL].[2021-12-02].https://www.dfg.de.
[5] 国家自然科学基金委员会[EB/OL].[2021-01-28].http://www.nsfc.gov.cn.
[6] "交叉学科"成第14个学科门类[EB/OL].[2021-01-14]. http://www.moe.gov.cn.
[7] HOFFMANN M H G, SCHMIDT J C, NERSESSIAN N J. Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity[J]. Synthese, 2013, 190(11):1857-1975.
[8] 李江."跨学科性"的概念框架与测度[J].图书情报知识,2014(3):87-93.
[9] 张慧, 张家榕, 叶鹰. 国内图书馆学情报学研究论文的文科跨学科性分析[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2017, 36(12):20-26.
[10] 邱均平, 余厚强. 跨学科发文视角下我国图书情报学跨学科研究态势分析[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2013, 5(6):5-10.
[11] STOPAR K, DROBNE D, ELER K, et al. Citation analysis and mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology:identifying the scope and interdisciplinarity of research[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(2):563-581.
[12] HU J, ZHANG Y. Discovering the interdisciplinary nature of Big Data research through social network analysis and visualization[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 112(1):1-19.
[13] CHEN C L P, ZHANG C Y. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies:a survey on big data[J]. Information sciences, 2014, 275:314-347.
[14] 张琳,黄颖. 交叉科学测度、评价与应用[M].北京:科学出版社,2019:96-134.
[15] 杨良斌, 金碧辉. 跨学科测度指标体系的构建研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2009, 28(7):65-69.
[16] 张雪, 张志强. 学科交叉研究系统综述[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(14):112-125.
[17] 章成志, 吴小兰. 跨学科研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(5):523-535.
[18] WANG Q, SCHNEIDER J W. Consistency and validity of interdisciplinarity measures[J]. Quantitative science studies, 2020, 1(1):239-263.
[19] WAGNER C S, ROESSNER J D, BOBB K, et al. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research:a review of the literature[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1):14-26.
[20] 曹玲静, 陈云伟. 学科交叉评价研究进展综述[J]. 情报杂志, 2020, 39(7):173-180.
[21] 李长玲, 高峰, 牌艳欣. 试论跨学科潜在知识生长点及其识别方法[J].科学学研究, 2021, 39(6):1007-1014.
[22] PORTER A L, CHUBIN D E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8(3/4):161-176.
[23] MCCANN K S. The diversity-stability debate[J]. Nature, 2000, 405(6783):228-233.
[24] GASTON K J, SPICER J I. Biodiversity:an introduction[M]. New Jersey:Blackwell Science, 2004.
[25] GÓMEZ I, BORDONS M, FERNÁNDEZ M T, et al. Coping with the problem of subject classification diversity[J]. Scientometrics, 1996, 35(2):223-235.
[26] VAN LEEUWEN T, TIJSSEN R. Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science:analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows[J]. Research evaluation, 2000, 9(3):183-187.
[27] GINI C. Variability and mutability, contribution to the study of statistical distributions and relations[J]. Studi economico-giuridici della R. universita de cagliari, 1912.
[28] GINI C. Measurement of inequality of incomes[J]. The economic journal, 1921, 31(121):124-126.
[29] BAIN J S. Barriers to new competition:the character and consequences in manufacturing industries[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1956.
[30] HERFINDAHL O. Concentration in the US steel industry[D]. New York:Columbia University,1950.
[31] HIRSCHMAN A O. The Paternity of an Index[J]. The American economic review, 1964, 54(5):761.
[32] MOSCHINI U, FENIALDI E, DARAIO C, et al. A comparison of three multidisciplinarity indices based on the diversity of Scopus subject areas of authors' documents, their bibliography and their citing papers[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(2):1145-1158.
[33] MORILLO F, BORDONS M, GÓMEZ I. An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(1):203-222.
[34] BRILLOUIN L. Science and information theory[M]. New York:Academic Press, 1956.
[35] STEELE T W, STIER J C. The impact of interdisciplinary research in the environmental sciences:a forestry case study[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2000, 51(5):476-484.
[36] 方锦清, 汪小帆, 郑志刚,等. 一门崭新的交叉科学:网络科学[J].物理学进展, 2007, 27(3):239-343.
[37] 诺伊, 姆尔瓦, 巴塔盖尔吉,等. 蜘蛛:社会网络分析技术[M].林枫,译.北京:世界图书出版公司, 2012.
[38] RAFOLS I, MEYER M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity:case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2):263-287.
[39] LEYDESDORFF L. Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(9):1303-1319.
[40] LEYDESDORFF L. Top-down decomposition of the Journal Citation Report of the Social Science Citation Index:Graph-and factor-analytical approaches[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(2):159-180.
[41] VAN DEN BESSELAAR P, HEIMERIKS G. Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary:concepts and indicators[C]//8th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics proceedings-ISSI-2001. Sydney, 2001:705-716.
[42] RAFOLS I, LEYDESDORFF L, O'HARE A, et al. How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research:a comparison between innovation studies and business & management[J]. Research policy, 2012, 41(7):1262-1282.
[43] RAFOLS I. Knowledge integration and diffusion:measures and mapping of diversity and coherence[M]. Cham:Springer, 2014:169-190.
[44] HAKE H. Synergeties, an introduction:non-equi1ibrium phase transitions and self-organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology[M].Berlin:Springer-Verlag, 1983:52-68.
[45] BROOKS D R, WILEY E O. Evolution as entropy[J]. Taxon, 1988, 35(4):149-150.
[46] THEIL H. Statistical decomposition analysis:with applications in the social and administrative sciences[M]. North-Holland:North-Holland Publishing Company, 1972.
[47] KRIPPENDORFF K. Information of interactions in complex systems[J]. International journal of general systems, 2009, 38(6):669-680.
[48] LEYDESDORFF L, PETERSEN A M, IVANOVA I. Self-organization of meaning and the reflexive communication of information[J]. Social science information, 2017, 56(1):4-27.
[49] LEYDESDORFF L, IVANOVA I. The measurement of "interdisciplinarity" and "synergy" in scientific and extra-scientific collaborations[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2021, 72(4):387-402.
[50] 盛世豪, 徐梦周. 科学学学科发展态势及重点研究领域[J]. 科学学研究, 2018, 36(12):2154-2159.
[51] UZZI B, MUKHERJEE S, STRINGER M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157):468-472.
[52] WANG J, VEUGELERS R, STEPHAN P. Bias against novelty in science:a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research policy, 2017, 46(8):1416-1436.
[53] HILL M O. Diversity and evenness:a unifying notation and its consequences[J]. Ecology, 1973, 54(2):427-432.
[54] CHEN K, LIANG C. Disciplinary interflow of library and information science in Taiwan[J]. Journal of library and information studies,2004, 2(2):31-55.
[55] RINIA E J, LEEUWEN T N V, BRUINS E E W. Citation delay in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange[J]. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(1):293-309.
[56] LEVITT J M, THELWALL M, OPPENHEIM C. Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2014, 62(6):1118-1129.
[57] SIMPSON E H. Measurement of Diversity[J]. Nature, 1949, 163(4148):688-688.
[58] SHANNON C E. A mathematical theory of communication[J]. ACM sigmobile mobile computing and communications review, 2001, 5(1):3-55.
[59] SILVA F N, RODRIGUES F A, OLIVEIRA O N, et al. Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013, 7(2):469-477.
[60] LIN J. Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy[J]. IEEE transactions on information theory, 1991, 37(1):145-151.
[61] BERGMANN T, DALE R, SATTARI N, et al. The interdisciplinarity of collaborations in cognitive science[J]. Cognitive science, 2017, 41(5):1412-1418.
[62] BOTT E. Family and social network:roles, norms, and external relationships in ordinary urban families[M]. London:Tavistock publications, 1957.
[63] FREEMAN L C. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness[J]. Sociometry, 1977, 40(1):35-41.
[64] 李长玲, 纪雪梅, 支岭. 基于EI指数的学科交叉程度分析——以情报学等5个学科为例[J].图书情报工作, 2011, 55(16):33-36.
[65] 陈赛君, 陈智高. 领域交叉性分析指标与方法新探及其实证研究[J].情报学报, 2013, 32(11):1184-1195.
[66] XU H, GUO T, YUE Z, et al. Interdisciplinary topics of information science:a study based on the terms interdisciplinarity index series[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 106(2):583-601.
[67] LEYDESDORFF L, RAFOLS I. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals:diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2011, 5(1):87-100.
[68] PRATT A D. A measure of class concentration in bibliometrics[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1977, 28(5):285-292.
[69] SALTON G, MCGILL M J. Introduction to modern information retrieval[M]. Los Angeles:Mcgraw Hill, 1983.
[70] PORTER A, COHEN A, DAVID ROESSNER J, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(1):117-147.
[71] LEINSTER T, COBBOLD C A. Measuring diversity:the importance of species similarity[J]. Ecology, 2012, 93(3):477-489.
[72] ZHANG L, ROUSSEAU R, GLÄNZEL W. Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals:taking similarity between subject fields into account[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(5):1257-1265.
[73] LEYDESDORFF L. Diversity and interdisciplinarity:how can one distinguish and recombine disparity, variety, and balance?[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 116(3):2113-2121.
[74] STIRLING A. On the economics and analysis of diversity[J/OL].[2022-06-20].https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247036152_On_the_Economics_and_Analysis_of_Diversity.
[75] STIRLING A. A general framework for analyzing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. SPRU working paper series, 2007, 4(15):707.
[76] 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[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(3):795-822.
[77] BROMHAM L, DINNAGE R, HUA X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success[J]. Nature, 2016, 534(7609):684-687.
[78] 黄颖, 张琳, 孙蓓蓓,等. 跨学科的三维测度——外部知识融合、内在知识会聚与科学合作模式[J]. 科学学研究, 2019, 37(1):27-37.
[79] LEE M R, CHEN T T. Understanding social computing research[J]. It professional, 2013, 15(6):56-62.
[80] TANG R. Evolution of the interdisciplinary characteristics of information and library science[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2004, 41(1):54-63.
[81] 熊文靓, 付慧真. 基于主题挖掘模型的跨学科性研究主题及其演化研究[J]. 情报科学, 2021, 39(11):117-120.
[82] GATES A J, KE Q, VAROL O, et al. Nature's reach:narrow work has broad impact[J]. Nature, 2019, 575(7781):32-34.
[83] CAMPBELL D T. Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience[M]//Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. London:Routledge, 2017:328-348.
[84] LEAHEY E, BECKMAN C M, STANKO T L. Prominent but less productive:the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists' research[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 2017, 62(1):105-139.
[85] FONTANA M, IORI M, MONTOBBIO F, et al. New and atypical combinations:an assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity[J]. Research policy, 2020, 49(7):104063.
[86] KOIER E, HORLINGS E. How accurately does output reflect the nature and design of transdisciplinary research programmes?[J] Research evaluation, 2015, 24(1):37-50.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉