IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2233-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disciplinary dimensions and social relevance in the scientific communications on biofuels

Author

Listed:
  • Janaína Gomes

    (Federal University of Santa Maria)

  • Homero Dewes

    (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)

Abstract

The disciplinary structure of research on complex problems related to human activities is supported by the fundaments of the social, life, and hard sciences. In this work, we looked at the development of scientific research in the field of biofuels, as a sustainable source of energy, searching for references regarding its scientific roots and social relevance. Scientific communications on biofuels published between 1998 and 2007 were analyzed using a combination of bibliometric methods and text mining techniques. This field of research was characterized as interdisciplinary, with marked social relevance. Our bibliometric analysis shows that, in this research subject, 132 different, interacting fields of knowledge overlap, with dominance of Chemistry, Engineering and Agricultural Sciences. Through the use of text mining techniques, this field was configured into three groups of Disciplinary Dimensions. The first and most influential group includes the Agricultural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Environmental Sciences. The second group, which gives the field its technological basis, includes Chemistry, Engineering, and Microbiology. The third group includes disciplines with emerging involvement in the field of biofuels: Biology and Biochemistry, Animal and Plant Sciences, Molecular Biology and Genetics, Economics, Material Sciences, Nanosciences and Nanotechnology, Geosciences, Physics, Humanities, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Sciences. This study suggests that the first group of Disciplinary Dimensions conforms to the elements that socially validate the progress of research in the field of biofuels. This study also proposes a metric that can be used to measure the interdisciplinarity and the social framing of any other research field.

Suggested Citation

  • Janaína Gomes & Homero Dewes, 2017. "Disciplinary dimensions and social relevance in the scientific communications on biofuels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1173-1189, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2233-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2233-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2233-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-2233-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    3. Jürgen Geigrich, 2003. "Modern Times and Imperfect Cycles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 10-12, July.
    4. Robert Anex, 2003. "Something New under the Sun?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 1-4, July.
    5. Lindell Bromham & Russell Dinnage & Xia Hua, 2016. "Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 684-687, June.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey & Olivier Bouin & Marie-Laure Djelic & Ravi Kanbur & Cécile Laborde & Helga Nowotny & Elisa Reis & Elke Weber & Michel Wieviorka & Xiaobo Zhang, 2016. "Policy: Social-progress panel seeks public comment," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7609), pages 616-617, June.
    7. G. Salton & C. S. Yang & C. T. Yu, 1975. "A theory of term importance in automatic text analysis," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 26(1), pages 33-44, January.
    8. E. Talamini & H. Dewes, 2012. "The macro-environment for liquid Biofuels in Brazilian science and public policies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 13-29, January.
    9. Mark R. Finlay, 2003. "Old Efforts at New Uses: A Brief History of Chemurgy and the American Search for Biobased Materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(3‐4), pages 33-46, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dejian Yu & Sun Meng, 2018. "An overview of biomass energy research with bibliometric indicators," Energy & Environment, , vol. 29(4), pages 576-590, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew S. Hanks & Kevin M. Kniffin & Xuechao Qian & Bo Wang & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2022. "First Foot Forward: A Two-Step Econometric Method for Parsing and Estimating the Impacts of Multiple Identities," NBER Working Papers 30293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Yuxian Liu & Yishan Wu & Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2020. "Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 937-950, November.
    3. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Leone Sciabolazza, Valerio & Souza, Daniel, 2022. "The interdisciplinarity dilemma: Public versus private interests," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    4. Alexander M. Petersen & Mohammed E. Ahmed & Ioannis Pavlidis, 2021. "Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Jingjing Ren & Fang Wang & Minglu Li, 2023. "Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4383-4419, August.
    6. Max Oke Kluger & Gerhard Bartzke, 2020. "A practical guideline how to tackle interdisciplinarity—A synthesis from a post-graduate group project," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    8. Shiyun Wang & Jin Mao & Yujie Cao & Gang Li, 2022. "Integrated knowledge content in an interdisciplinary field: identification, classification, and application," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6581-6614, November.
    9. Marco Seeber & Jef Vlegels & Mattia Cattaneo, 2022. "Conditions that do or do not disadvantage interdisciplinary research proposals in project evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1106-1126, August.
    10. Sander Zwanenburg & Maryam Nakhoda & Peter Whigham, 2022. "Toward greater consistency and validity in measuring interdisciplinarity: a systematic and conceptual evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7769-7788, December.
    11. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    12. Sha Yuan & Zhou Shao & Xingxing Wei & Jie Tang & Wendy Hall & Yongli Wang & Ying Wang & Ye Wang, 2020. "Science behind AI: the evolution of trend, mobility, and collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 993-1013, August.
    13. Shahadat Uddin & Tasadduq Imam & Mohammad Mozumdar, 2021. "Research interdisciplinarity: STEM versus non-STEM," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 603-618, January.
    14. Stephen Carley & Alan L. Porter, 2012. "A forward diversity index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 407-427, February.
    15. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2019. "Diversification versus specialization in scientific research: Which strategy pays off?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 51-57.
    16. Ronald Rousseau, 2018. "The repeat rate: from Hirschman to Stirling," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 645-653, July.
    17. Su, Hsin-Ning & Moaniba, Igam M., 2017. "Investigating the dynamics of interdisciplinary evolution in technology developments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Chen, Yu-Long & Kumar, Vimal & Daim, Tugrul & Verma, Pratima & Kao, Fang-Chen & Liu, Ruirong, 2023. "Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of E-payment technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    19. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Li, Ying & Van de Vrande, Vareska, 2009. "The dual role of external corporate venturing in technological exploration," MPRA Paper 26488, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2010.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2233-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.