图书情报领域中的交叉科学研究：进展与展望

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.05.003

情报学报

2020, Vol. 39

Issue (5): 478-491 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.05.003

专题约稿

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

图书情报领域中的交叉科学研究：进展与展望

顾秀丽¹, 黄颖^2,3, 孙蓓蓓², 张琳^2,3,4

1.湖南大学公共管理学院，长沙 410082
2.武汉大学信息管理学院，武汉 430072
3.鲁汶大学ECOOM研究中心，鲁汶 B- 3000
4.华北水利水电大学管理与经济学院，郑州 450046

Interdisciplinary Research in Information Science and Library Science: Progress and Prospects

Gu Xiuli¹, Huang Ying^2,3, Sun Beibei², Zhang Lin^2,3,4

1.School of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha 410082
2.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
3.Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM) and Department of MSI, KU Leuven, Leuven B- 3000
4.Department of Management and Economics, North China University of Water Resource and Electric Power, Zhengzhou 450046

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (4023 KB) HTML (151 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要面对具有复杂性、综合性和交融性的重大问题，单一学科的理论和方法往往难以对其进行全方位的深入探讨和系统建构，交叉科学研究日益成为解决人类发展重大难题不可或缺的研究范式。本文基于交叉科学研究相关论文的著录项信息，呈现了当前图书情报领域中的交叉科学研究在国家、机构、作者、期刊等不同维度的基本概貌，并运用耦合分析探究了交叉科学研究的主题分布情况。系统分析交叉科学的主要研究进展，有利于从整体上把握其发展脉络，挖掘当前研究的热点与重点，对于推动我国的交叉科学研究具有一定的启示与借鉴意义。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	顾秀丽
	黄颖
	孙蓓蓓
	张琳

关键词 ：交叉科学, 文献计量, 可视化分析, 科学图谱

收稿日期: 2019-10-31

基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目“交叉科学的三维测度：内在知识基础、外在信息链接和科学活动模式”（71573085）；河南省高等学校哲学社会科学研究优秀学者项目（2018-YXXZ-10）。

作者简介: 顾秀丽，女，1996年生，硕士研究生，研究方向为信息计量与科技评价

引用本文:

顾秀丽, 黄颖, 孙蓓蓓, 张琳. 图书情报领域中的交叉科学研究：进展与展望[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(5): 478-491.
Gu Xiuli, Huang Ying, Sun Beibei, Zhang Lin. Interdisciplinary Research in Information Science and Library Science: Progress and Prospects. 情报学报, 2020, 39(5): 478-491.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2020.05.003 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2020/V39/I5/478

1 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine Sciences. Facilitating interdisciplinary research[R]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
2 BruunH, HukkinenJ I, HuutoniemiK I, et al. Promoting interdisciplinary research: The case of the academy of Finland[R]. Helsinki Academy of Finland, 2005.
3 教育部, 财政部, 国家发展改革委. 教育部财政部国家发展改革委印发《关于高等学校加快“双一流”建设的指导意见》的通知[EB/OL]. (2018-08-20) [2019-02-23]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201808/t20180823_345987.html?from=timeline.
4 AustinW, ParkC, GobleE. From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study[J]. Qualitative Health Research, 2008, 18(4): 557-564.
5 WagnerC S, RoessnerJ D, BobbK, et al. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 14-26.
6 VareyR J. Internal marketing: A review and some interdisciplinary research challenges[J]. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 1995, 6(1): 40-63.
7 刘仲林, 赵晓春, 程妍, 等. 国外交叉科学(跨学科)研究新进展[J]. 河池学院学报, 2009, 29(1): 8-12.
8 章成志, 吴小兰. 跨学科研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(5): 523-535.
9 张琳. 国内外“交叉科学”研究现状及评述[J]. 科技管理研究, 2013, 33(12): 251-254.
10 StokolsD, FuquaJ, GressJ, et al. Evaluating transdisciplinary science[J]. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2003, 5(S1): S21-S39.
11 NicolescuB. La transdisciplinarité[M]. Paris: éditions du Rocher, 1996.
12 PohlC, HadornG H. Principles for designing transdisciplinary research[M]. Munich: Oekom, 2007.
13 JenseniusA R. Disciplinarities: Intra, cross, multi, inter, trans[EB/OL]. (2012-03-12) [2020-2-13]. http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/.
14 BrozekJ, KeysA. General aspects of interdisciplinary research in experimental human biology[J]. Science, 1944, 100(2606): 507-512.
15 Doherty E FO. Multidisciplinary methods in retrospect[J]. Psychiatry, 1948, 11(4): 355-358.
16 MurphyR C, GlaserN. The problem of cross disciplinary community education by a psychiatric clinic[J]. Human Relations, 1951, 4(3): 265-278.
17 JantschE. Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation[J]. Policy Sciences, 1970, 1(4): 403-428.
18 CarleyS, PorterA L, RafolsI, et al. Visualization of disciplinary profiles: Enhanced science overlay maps[J]. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2017, 2(3): 68-111.
19 BluemleA. The role of the editor in interdisciplinary research[J]. American Documentation, 1959, 10(2): 105-107.
20 OggN J, SievertM, LiZ R, et al. Construction of a medical informatics thesaurus[C]// Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care. American Medical Informatics Association, 1994: 900-904.
21 苏芳荔. 科研合作对期刊论文被引频次的影响[J]. 图书情报工作, 2011, 55(10): 144-148.
22 RafolsI, PorterA L, LeydesdorffL. Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management[J]. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(9): 1871-1887.
23 周金元, 刘兵, 唐青. 基于文献计量分析的国内外胜任力研究述评[J]. 科技管理研究, 2013, 33(15): 145-150, 155.
24 WaltmanL, van EckN J. A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection[J]. The European Physical Journal B, 2013, 86: Article No. 471.
25 KleinJ T. Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities[M]. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996.
26 SchmidtJ C. Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity[J]. Poiesis & Praxis, 2008, 5(1): 53-69.
27 YanE J. Disciplinary knowledge production and diffusion in science[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(9): 2223-2245.
28 PalmerC L. Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1999, 50(3): 242-253.
29 QinJ, LancasterF W, AllenB. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 1997, 48(10): 893-916.
30 ChoiB C K, PakA W P. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness[J]. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 2006, 29(6): 351-364.
31 PorterA L, RafolsI. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time[J]. Scientometrics, 2009, 81(3): 719-745.
32 BoyackK W, KlavansR, B?rnerK. Mapping the backbone of science[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 64(3): 351-374.
33 LeydesdorffL, SchankT. Dynamic animations of journal maps: Indicators of structural changes and interdisciplinary developments[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(11): 1810-1818.
34 StirlingA. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
35 ZhangL, RousseauR, Gl?nzelW. 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.
36 RafolsI, MeyerM. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
37 LeydesdorffL. 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.
38 LeydesdorffL, RafolsI. Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(1): 87-100.
39 RoyR. Funding science: The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it[J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1985, 10(3): 73-81.
40 PautassoM, PautassoC. Peer reviewing interdisciplinary papers[J]. European Review, 2010, 18(2): 227-237.
41 LangfeldtL. The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments[J]. Research Evaluation, 2006, 15(1): 31-41.
42 KleinJ T. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2): S116-S123.
43 CassiL, MeschebaW, deTurckheim é. How to evaluate the degree of interdisciplinarity of an institution?[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(3): 1871-1895.
44 ZhouP, LeydesdorffL. Fractional counting of citations in research evaluation: A cross- and interdisciplinary assessment of the Tsinghua University in Beijing[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2011, 5(3): 360-368.
45 LarivièreV, GingrasY. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 126-131.
46 LevittJ M, ThelwallM. Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? A macrolevel study[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(12): 1973-1984.
47 ChenS J, ArsenaultC, LarivièreV. Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, 9(4): 1034-1046.
48 Yegros-YegrosA, RafolsI, Este PD. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity[J]. PLoS ONE, 2015, 10(8): e0135095.
49 RafolsI, LeydesdorffL, Hare AO, 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.
50 GrantJ, HopkinsM, RafolsI, et al. The value of structural diversity: Assessing diversity for a sustainable research base[R]. London: Digital Science and the Science Policy Research Unit, 2015.
51 AbramoG, Angelo C AD, DiCosta F. Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(11): 2206-2222.
52 AbramoG, Angelo C AD, DiCosta F. Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(1): 317-336.
53 Karlov?ecM, Mladeni?D. Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 102(1): 433-454.
54 SchummerJ. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 425-465.
55 ZhangL, SunB B, Chinchilla-RodríguezZ, et al. Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: On the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists[J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 117(1): 271-291.
56 AbramoG, D’AngeloC A, ZhangL. A comparison of two approaches for measuring interdisciplinary research output: The disciplinary diversity of authors vs the disciplinary diversity of the reference list[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(4): 1182-1193.
57 JacobsonM J, WilenskyU. Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences[J]. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2006, 15(1): 11-34.
58 RhotenD, MansillaV, ChunM, et al. Interdisciplinary education at Liberal Arts Institutions[M]. New York: Teagle Foundation White Paper, 2006.
59 LattucaL R, VoigtL J, FathK Q. Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions[J]. The Review of Higher Education, 2004, 28(1): 23-48.
60 SpeltE J H, BiemansH J A, TobiH, et al. Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review[J]. Educational Psychology Review, 2009, 21(4): 365-378.
61 EisenM J, TisdellE J. Team teaching: The learning side of the teaching-learning equation[J]. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 2007, 14(7): 1-5.
62 AndersonR S, SpeckB W. “Oh what a difference a team makes”: Why team teaching makes a difference[J]. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1998, 14(7): 671-686.