Archives des mots-clés : Interdisciplinarity

Does Open Access Foster Interdisciplinary Citation? Decomposing Open Access Citation Advantage

Posté le par

Authors : Kai Nishikawa, Akiyoshi Murakami

The existence of an open access (OA) citation advantage, that is, whether OA increases citations, has been a topic of interest for many years. Although numerous previous studies have focused on whether OA increases citations, expectations for OA go beyond that. One such expectation is the promotion of knowledge transfer across various fields.

This study aimed to clarify whether OA, especially gold OA, increases interdisciplinary citations in various natural science fields. Specifically, we measured the effect of OA on interdisciplinary and within-discipline citation counts by decomposing an existing metric of the OA citation advantage.

The results revealed that OA increases both interdisciplinary and within-discipline citations in many fields and increases only interdisciplinary citations in chemistry, computer science, and clinical medicine. Among these fields, clinical medicine tends to obtain more interdisciplinary citations without being influenced by specific journals or papers.

The findings indicate that OA fosters knowledge transfer to different fields, which extends our understanding of its effects.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14653

Science’s greatest discoverers: a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age

Posté le par

Author : Alexander Krauss

What are the unique features and characteristics of the scientists who have made the greatest discoveries in science? To address this question, we assess all major scientific discoverers, defined as all nobel-prize and major non-nobel-prize discoverers, and their demographic, institutional and economic traits.

What emerges is a general profile of the scientists who have driven over 750 of science’s greatest advances. We find that interdisciplinary scientists who completed two or more degrees in different academic fields by the time of discovery made about half—54%—of all nobel-prize discoveries and 42% of major non-nobel-prize discoveries over the same period; this enables greater interdisciplinary methodological training for making new scientific achievements.

Science is also becoming increasingly elitist, with scientists at the top 25 ranked universities accounting for 30% of both all nobel-prize and non-nobel-prize discoveries. Scientists over the age of 50 made only 7% of all nobel-prize discoveries and 15% of non-nobel-prize discoveries and those over the age of 60 made only 1% and 3%, respectively. The gap in years between making nobel-prize discoveries and receiving the award is also increasing over time across scientific fields—illustrating that it is taking longer to recognise and select major breakthroughs.

Overall, we find that those who make major discoveries are increasingly interdisciplinary, older and at top universities. We also assess here the role and distribution of factors like geographic location, gender, religious affiliation and country conditions of these leading scientists, and how these factors vary across time and scientific fields.

The findings suggest that more discoveries could be made if science agencies and research institutions provide greater incentives for researchers to work against the common trend of narrow specialisation and instead foster interdisciplinary research that combines novel methods across fields.

URL : Science’s greatest discoverers: a shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02781-4

Franchir les frontières. Pratiques de l’interdisciplinarité et construction du chercheur

Posté le par

Auteur.ices/Authors : Jeanne Riaux, Stéphanie M. Carrière, Jean-Luc Chotte, Florence Fournet

Ce texte contribue à un large ensemble de réflexions sur l’interdisciplinarité. Au travers des trajectoires personnelles des coauteurs, il vise à comprendre le rôle de l’interdisciplinarité « de l’intérieur », dans la construction des chercheuses et des chercheurs et, partant, de porter un regard positif sur cette pratique souvent présentée sous un angle négatif (difficultés, écueils, etc.).

Les exemples concrets de franchissements des frontières disciplinaires, sont autant de témoignages de la diversité des trajectoires. Mais à travers cette diversité se dessinent des traits communs. L’interdisciplinarité s’est construite en même temps que l’identité scientifique de chacun s’est façonnée.

Cette construction particulière n’est probablement pas sans lien avec une certaine proximité avec le « terrain », dans toutes ses composantes physiques ou sociales. Elle est aussi le propre d’une hybridation entre les parcours individuels et la diversité des expertises scientifiques et culturelles des collègues avec lesquels se nouent les collaborations.

Ce retour d’expérience réflexif offre à l’analyse de la pratique interdisciplinaire quelques éléments d’objectivation, notamment sur la manière dont elle façonne les trajectoires individuelles et sur le rôle du décentrement et de la réflexivité dans ces trajectoires.

URL : Franchir les frontières. Pratiques de l’interdisciplinarité et construction du chercheur

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2023044

Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research

Posté le par

Author : Abbas AbdulRafiu

Public research funding is a critical instrument in technology and social innovation. This paper explores the emerging themes and topical trends that commonly influence interdisciplinary research within a sample of global research projects, including reviewing a recent study of 1,000 projects used in the selection of expert interview participants (n = 15).

It examines the extent to which research funding agencies and academic institutions are shifting research priorities in the energy and climate change domain. It asks: What challenges does interdisciplinary research raise?

The study reveals how cross-disciplinary research funding focuses on or fails to address the themes of sustainable development goals. In addition, it emphasises policy seduction and difficulty (resistance) in understanding cross-disciplinary methods in research and how research collaborations promote (or fail to promote) global South institutions and topics.

Finally, the paper recommends that research funding needs involve a broader array of stakeholders in industrial decarbonisation research, including policymakers, industries, and citizens.

URL : Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac051

Réfléchir l’interdisciplinarité à INRAE

Posté le par

Authors : Patrice Garin, Isabelle Arpin, Olivier Barreteau, Carole Caranta, Christian Ducrot, Mourad Hannachi, Isabelle Maillet

Quels sont les pratiques de recherche, les savoir-être et savoir-faire, les environnements de travail et les cadres institutionnels propices à l’interdisciplinarité ? Tel était le fil conducteur d’un séminaire tenu en janvier 2020, mettant en débat les expériences de scientifiques d’INRAE.

Les dispositifs conçus pour la recherche disciplinaire ont été questionnés sur leur capacité à favoriser sur la durée la prise de risque de l’interdisciplinarité, à accompagner les scientifiques qui s’y engagent, et à reconnaître cet engagement dans leur carrière.

Il en ressort un besoin de souplesse dans la mobilisation d’arènes, de temps et de moyens permettant les échanges.

URL : Réfléchir l’interdisciplinarité à INRAE

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2021034

Cinq types de travail scientifique « interdisciplinaire »

Posté le par

Auteur/Author : Fabrizio Li Vigni

La littérature sur l’« interdisciplinarité » est imposante. Toutefois, peu de travaux fournissent des taxonomies descriptives des différentes figures du travail scientifique au croisement entre savoirs différents.

Ceux qui le font adoptent soit un point de vue normatif et internaliste relativement à une discipline donnée, soit le point de vue de la sociologie de l’identité. En outre, le concept de « zone de transaction » est si utilisé en sciences sociales et au-delà qu’il semble pouvoir recouvrir la plupart des échanges « interdisciplinaires », mais se révèle en fait insuffisant.

À partir d’un terrain auprès d’équipes de recherche en sciences de la complexité, cet article se propose de fournir une taxonomie descriptive du travail scientifique « interdisciplinaire » selon cinq types (transfrontaliers, ambassadeurs, polyglottes, binationaux et traducteurs) illustrés par des extraits d’entretiens et d’archives.

URL : Cinq types de travail scientifique « interdisciplinaire

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2021033

Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science

Posté le par

Authors : Alexander M. Petersen, Mohammed E. Ahmed, Ioannis Pavlidis

To address complex problems, scholars are increasingly faced with challenges of integrating diverse domains. We analyzed the evolution of this convergence paradigm in the ecosystem of brain science, a research frontier that provides a contemporary testbed for evaluating two modes of cross-domain integration: (a) cross-disciplinary collaboration among experts from academic departments associated with disparate disciplines; and (b) cross-topic knowledge recombination across distinct subject areas.

We show that research involving both modes features a 16% citation premium relative to a mono-domain baseline. We further show that the cross-disciplinary mode is essential for integrating across large epistemic distances.

Yet we find research utilizing cross-topic exploration alone—a convergence shortcut—to be growing in prevalence at roughly 3% per year, significantly outpacing the more essential cross-disciplinary convergence mode.

By measuring shifts in the prevalence and impact of different convergence modes in the 5-year intervals up to and after 2013, we find that shortcut patterns may relate to competitive pressures associated with Human Brain funding initiatives launched that year.

Without policy adjustments, flagship funding programs may unintentionally incentivize suboptimal integration patterns, thereby undercutting convergence science’s potential in tackling grand challenges.

URL : Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00869-9