IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v117y2018i1d10.1007_s11192-018-2866-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences

Author

Listed:
  • John McLevey

    () (University of Waterloo)

  • Alexander V. Graham

    () (University of Waterloo)

  • Reid McIlroy-Young

    () (University of Chicago)

  • Pierson Browne

    () (University of Waterloo)

  • Kathryn S. Plaisance

    () (University of Waterloo)

Abstract

Two fundamentally different perspectives on knowledge diffusion dominate debates about academic disciplines. On the one hand, critics of disciplinary research and education have argued that disciplines are isolated silos, within which specialists pursue inward-looking and increasingly narrow research agendas. On the other hand, critics of the silo argument have demonstrated that researchers constantly import and export ideas across disciplinary boundaries. These perspectives have different implications for how knowledge diffuses, how intellectuals gain and lose status within their disciplines, and how intellectual reputations evolve within and across disciplines. We argue that highly general claims about the nature of disciplinary boundaries are counterproductive, and that research on the nature of specific disciplinary boundaries is more useful. To that end, this paper uses a novel publication and citation network dataset and statistical models of citation networks to test hypotheses about the boundaries between philosophy of science and 11 disciplinary clusters. Specifically, we test hypotheses about whether engaging with and being cited by scientific communities outside philosophy of science has an impact on one’s position within philosophy of science. Our results suggest that philosophers of science produce interdisciplinary scholarship, but they tend not to cite work by other philosophers when it is published in journals outside of their discipline. Furthermore, net of other factors, receiving citations from other disciplines has no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on citations within philosophy of science. We conclude by considering this evidence for simultaneous interdisciplinarity and insularity in terms of scientific trading theory and other work on disciplinary boundaries and communication.

Suggested Citation

  • John McLevey & Alexander V. Graham & Reid McIlroy-Young & Pierson Browne & Kathryn S. Plaisance, 2018. "Interdisciplinarity and insularity in the diffusion of knowledge: an analysis of disciplinary boundaries between philosophy of science and the sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 331-349, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2866-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2866-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2866-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. Luís M. A. Bettencourt & David I. Kaiser & Jasleen Kaur & Carlos Castillo-Chávez & David E. Wojick, 2008. "Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 495-518, June.
    2. Yan, Erjia & Ding, Ying & Cronin, Blaise & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2013. "A bird's-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 249-264.
    3. Chaomei Chen & Diana Hicks, 2004. "Tracing knowledge diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(2), pages 199-211, February.
    4. Hunter, David R. & Goodreau, Steven M. & Handcock, Mark S., 2013. "ergm.userterms: A Template Package for Extending statnet," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 52(i02).
    5. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans & Katy Börner, 2005. "Mapping the backbone of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(3), pages 351-374, August.
    6. Chunke Su & Noshir Contractor, 2011. "A multidimensional network approach to studying team members' information seeking from human and digital knowledge sources in consulting firms," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1257-1275, July.
    7. Lungeanu, Alina & Huang, Yun & Contractor, Noshir S., 2014. "Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 59-70.
    8. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(3), pages 525-539, January.
    9. Erjia Yan, 2014. "Finding knowledge paths among scientific disciplines," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(11), pages 2331-2347, November.
    10. Mario Coccia & Barry Bozeman, 2016. "Allometric models to measure and analyze the evolution of international research collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1065-1084, September.
    11. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    12. Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Blaise Cronin, 2012. "A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 997-1016, May.
    13. Hunter, David R. & Goodreau, Steven M. & Handcock, Mark S., 2008. "Goodness of Fit of Social Network Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 248-258, March.
    14. Ryan Light & jimi adams, 2016. "Knowledge in motion: the evolution of HIV/AIDS research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1227-1248, June.
    15. Shan Jiang & Qiang Gao & Hsinchun Chen & Mihail C. Roco, 2015. "The roles of sharing, transfer, and public funding in nanotechnology knowledge-diffusion networks," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1029, May.
    16. Henry Kreuzman, 2001. "A co-citation analysis of representative authors in philosophy: Examining the relationship between epistemologists and philosophers of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(3), pages 525-539, July.
    17. Chen, Shiji & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2015. "Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1034-1046.
    18. Mark Herrera & David C Roberts & Natali Gulbahce, 2010. "Mapping the Evolution of Scientific Fields," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(5), pages 1-6, May.
    19. K. Brad Wray & Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Philosophy of science viewed through the lense of “Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy” (RPYS)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1987-1996, March.
    20. Handcock, Mark S. & Hunter, David R. & Butts, Carter T. & Goodreau, Steven M. & Morris, Martina, 2008. "statnet: Software Tools for the Representation, Visualization, Analysis and Simulation of Network Data," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 24(i01).
    21. McLevey, John & McIlroy-Young, Reid, 2017. "Introducing metaknowledge: Software for computational research in information science, network analysis, and science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 176-197.
    22. Thed van Leeuwen & Robert Tijssen, 2000. "Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 183-187, December.
    23. Xuan Liu & Shan Jiang & Hsinchun Chen & Catherine A. Larson & Mihail C. Roco, 2015. "Modeling knowledge diffusion in scientific innovation networks: an institutional comparison between China and US with illustration for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1953-1984, December.
    24. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan, 2015. "Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines: an examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 335-359, 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. John G. Benjafield, 2020. "Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1965-1982, December.

    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:117:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2866-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.