跨学科知识融合对<bold>D</bold>指数的影响

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.03.005

情报学报

2022, Vol. 41

Issue (3): 263-274 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.03.005

情报分析方法与技术

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

跨学科知识融合对D指数的影响

吕冬晴, 阮选敏, 李江, 成颖

南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023

Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity and Radicalness of Papers from the Perspective of Knowledge Integration

Lyu Dongqing, Ruan Xuanmin, Li Jiang, Cheng Ying

School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (1)

全文: PDF (1660 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要为了探索学术论文跨学科性对其创新程度的影响，本研究采用参考文献多样性指数量化前者，通过能有效区分突破性与渐进性创新的D指数量化后者。据此，本研究采集了Web of Science（WoS）收录的神经科学领域发表于1975—2011年的498162篇研究型论文，主要采用了Logistic回归分析方法，并在分析过程中控制了跨学科团队属性与学术文献计量属性对结果的干扰。研究发现，在神经科学领域，论文的跨学科性对其突破性创新具有较强的积极影响；参与跨学科合作的机构越多，越有利于产出突破性论文，但团队规模越大、涉及的国家越多，更有可能产出渐进性创新成果；未受到基金资助的论文却具有更高水平的突破性。

	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
	吕冬晴
	阮选敏
	李江
	成颖

关键词 ：跨学科研究, 突破性创新, 渐进性创新, Logistic回归分析

收稿日期: 2020-11-16

基金资助:国家社会科学基金项目“学术文献颠覆性创新评价的理论及实证研究”（20BTQ086）。

作者简介: 吕冬晴，女，1994年生，博士研究生，主要研究方向为科学计量；阮选敏，女，1994年生，博士研究生，主要研究方向为科学计量；李江，男，1982年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究方向为科学学与科学计量；成颖，男，1971年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究方向为用户信息行为、信息检索与信息计量，E-mail：chengy@nju.edu.c；

引用本文:

吕冬晴, 阮选敏, 李江, 成颖. 跨学科知识融合对D指数的影响[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(3): 263-274.
Lyu Dongqing, Ruan Xuanmin, Li Jiang, Cheng Ying. Research on the Relationship between the Interdisciplinarity and Radicalness of Papers from the Perspective of Knowledge Integration. 情报学报, 2022, 41(3): 263-274.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.03.005 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2022/V41/I3/263

1 Ledford H. Team science[J]. Nature, 2015, 525(7569): 308-311.
2 Abramo G, D’Angelo C A, Di Costa F. Do interdisciplinary research teams deliver higher gains to science?[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(1): 317-336.
3 Murray A I. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1989, 10(S1): 125-141.
4 JrCannella A A, Park J H, Lee H U. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2008, 51(4): 768-784.
5 Yoo D K. Impacts of a knowledge sharing climate and interdisciplinary knowledge integration on innovation[J]. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 2017, 16(2): 1750010.
6 AitSahlia F, Johnson E, Will P. Is concurrent engineering always a sensible proposition?[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1995, 42(2): 166-170.
7 Keller R T. Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(3): 547-555.
8 张培, 阮选敏, 吕冬晴, 等. 人文社会科学学者的跨学科性对被引的影响研究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(7): 675-687.
9 Ponomarev I V, Lawton B K, Williams D E, et al. Breakthrough paper indicator 2.0: can geographical diversity and interdisciplinarity improve the accuracy of outstanding papers prediction?[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(3): 755-765.
10 Larivière V, Gingras Y. On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and scientific impact[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2010, 61(1): 126-131.
11 Tushman M L, Anderson P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31(3): 439-465.
12 于飞, 胡泽民, 董亮, 等. 知识耦合对企业突破式创新的影响机制研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2018, 36(12): 2292-2304.
13 Garcia Martinez M, Zouaghi F, Garcia Marco T. Diversity is strategy: the effect of R&D team diversity on innovative performance[J]. R&D Management, 2017, 47(2): 311-329.
14 Carlo J L, Lyytinen K, Rose G M. A knowledge-based model of radical innovation in small software firms[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36(3): 865-895.
15 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
16 Wu L F, Wang D S, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
17 Porter A L, Cohen A S, David Roessner J, et al. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity[J]. Scientometrics, 2007, 72(1): 117-147.
18 章成志, 吴小兰. 跨学科研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(5): 523-535.
19 Pessoa Junior G J, Dias T M R, Silva T H P, et al. On interdisciplinary collaborations in scientific coauthorship networks: the case of the Brazilian community[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 124(3): 2341-2360.
20 Zuo Z Y, Zhao K. The more multidisciplinary the better? - The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3): 736-756.
21 Locatelli B, Vallet A, Tassin J, et al. Collective and individual interdisciplinarity in a sustainability research group: a social network analysis[J]. Sustainability Science, 2021, 16(1): 37-52.
22 Porter A L, Roessner D J, Heberger A E. How interdisciplinary is a given body of research?[J]. Research Evaluation, 2008, 17(4): 273-282.
23 Wagner C S, Roessner J D, Bobb K, 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.
24 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.
25 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 American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 62(6): 1118-1129.
26 Porter A L, Chubin D E. An indicator of cross-disciplinary research[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8(3/4): 161-176.
27 Stirling A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
28 Rao C R. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: a unified approach[J]. Theoretical Population Biology, 1982, 21(1): 24-43.
29 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.
30 Schummer J. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 425-465.
31 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
32 Foster R N. Working the S-curve: assessing technological threats[J]. Research Management, 1986, 29(4): 17-20.
33 Ettlie J E, Bridges W P, O’Keefe R D. Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation[J]. Management Science, 1984, 30(6): 682-695.
34 Dewar R D, Dutton J E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis[J]. Management Science, 1986, 32(11): 1422-1433.
35 Nicolaisen J. Citation analysis[J]. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007, 41: 609-641.
36 Teufel S, Siddharthan A, Tidhar D. Automatic classification of citation function[C]// Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2006: 103-110.
37 Hall K L, Feng A X, Moser R P, et al. Moving the science of team science forward: collaboration and creativity[J]. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2): S243-S249.
38 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
39 Schilling M A. A “small-world” network model of cognitive insight[J]. Creativity Research Journal, 2005, 17(2/3): 131-154.
40 Nooteboom B. Learning by interaction: absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance[J]. Journal of Management and Governance, 2000, 4: 69-92.
41 Chiravuri A, Nazareth D, Ramamurthy K. Cognitive conflict and consensus generation in virtual teams during knowledge capture: comparative effectiveness of techniques[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2011, 28(1): 311-350.
42 Simonton D K. Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: is the creative process Darwinian?[J]. Psychological Inquiry, 1999, 10(4): 309-328.
43 Lee Y N, Walsh J P, Wang J. Creativity in scientific teams: unpacking novelty and impact[J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(3): 684-697.
44 Hülsheger U R, Anderson N, Salgado J F. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009, 94(5): 1128-1145.
45 Rogers Hollingsworth J. Institutionalizing excellence in biomedical research: the case of the Rockefeller University[M]// Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research: Contributions to the History of the Rockefeller University. New York: Rockefeller University Press, 2004: 17-63.
46 Huang S F, Chen J, Mei L, et al. The effect of heterogeneity and leadership on innovation performance: evidence from university research teams in China[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(16): 4441.
47 Bunderson J S, Sutcliffe K M. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45(5): 875-893.
48 Bruns H C. Working alone together: coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56(1): 62-83.
49 Hauptman O, Hirji K K. Managing integration and coordination in cross-functional teams: an international study of Concurrent Engineering product development[J]. R&D Management, 1999, 29(2): 179-192.
50 Cummings J N, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries[J]. Social Studies of Science, 2005, 35(5): 703-722.
51 Bornmann L, Tekles A. Disruption index depends on length of citation window[J]. El Profesional de la Información, 2019, 28(2): 24.
52 Chakraborty T, Ganguly N, Mukherjee A. Rising popularity of interdisciplinary research—an analysis of citation networks[C]// Proceedings of the 2014 Sixth International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks. IEEE, 2014: 1-6.
53 Martín-Alcázar F, Ruiz-Martínez M, Sánchez-Gardey G. The performance of researchers in multidisciplinary research groups: does social capital matter?[J/OL]. International Review of Administrative Sciences, (2020-04-27). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852 320919487.
54 Sud P, Thelwall M. Not all international collaboration is beneficial: the Mendeley readership and citation impact of biochemical research collaboration[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(8): 1849-1857.
55 Lotrecchiano G R, Mallinson T R, Leblanc-Beaudoin T, et al. Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis[J]. Heliyon, 2016, 2(5): e00105.
56 Shpilko I. An evaluation of the neuroscience journals in a large urban public university[J]. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 2015, 39(1/2): 9-22.
57 Burright M A, Hahn T B, Antonisse M J. Understanding information use in a multidisciplinary field: a local citation analysis of neuroscience research[J]. College & Research Libraries, 2005, 66(3): 198-211.
58 Bala A, Gupta B M. Mapping of Indian neuroscience research: a scientometric analysis of research output during 1999-2008[J]. Neurology India, 2010, 58(1): 35-41.
59 Katz J S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1): 1-18.
60 Xu X, Tan A M, Zhao S X. Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences[J]. Scientometrics, 2015, 104(3): 673-684.
61 Katila R, Ahuja G. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45(6): 1183-1194.
62 Schilling M A, Green E. Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: an analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(10): 1321-1331.
63 Taylor A, Greve H R. Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in Innovative Teams[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(4): 723-740.
64 Lee F. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search[J]. Management Science, 2001, 47(1): 117-132.
65 March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87.
66 Weisberg R W. Creativity and knowledge: a challenge to theories[M]// Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998: 226-250.
67 Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
68 吕冬晴, 谢娟, 成颖, 等. 我国人文社会科学间跨学科模式研究[J]. 图书情报知识, 2018(6): 37-49, 14.
69 Asubiaro T V. Research collaboration landscape of the University of Ibadan biomedical authors between 2006 and 2015[J]. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 2018, 28(1): 17-31.
70 Bercovitz J, Feldman M. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: composition, social networks, and geography[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(1): 81-93.
71 Fleishman J A. Collective action as helping behavior: effects of responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38(4): 629-637.
72 Gibbons D, Olk P M. Individual and structural origins of friendship and social position among professionals[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003, 84(2): 340-351.
73 Lungeanu A, Contractor N S. The effects of diversity and network ties on innovations: the emergence of a new scientific field[J]. American Behavioral Scientist, 2015, 59(5): 548-564.
74 Kelley D J, Ali A, Zahra S A. Where do breakthroughs come from? Characteristics of high-potential inventions[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2013, 30(6): 1212-1226.
75 Cummings J N, Kiesler S, Bosagh Zadeh R, et al. Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: a longitudinal study of productivity in research groups[J]. Psychological Science, 2013, 24(6): 880-890.
76 Walsh J P, Maloney N G. Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007, 12(2): 712-732.
77 Wagner C S, Leydesdorff L. Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(10): 1608-1618.
78 Huutoniemi K. Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals[J]. Social Studies of Science, 2012, 42(6): 897-921.
79 Fang H. A discussion on governmental research grants[J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2015, 21(5): 1285-1296.
80 Azoulay P, Graff Zivin J S, Manso G. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences[J]. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2011, 42(3): 527-554.
81 Spier R. Peer review and innovation[J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2002, 8(1): 99-108.
82 Travis G D L, Collins H M. New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system[J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1991, 16(3): 322-341.
83 Porter A L, Rossini F A. Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals[J]. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1985, 10(3): 33-38.
84 Luukkonen T. Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: emerging ERC practices[J]. Research Evaluation, 2012, 21(1): 48-60.
85 Rinia E J, van Leeuwen Th N, van Vuren H G, et al. Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(3): 357-361.