IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v118y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03013-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing, complementary and co-existing paradigms in techno-scientific literature: A case study of Nanotechnology for engineering

Author

Listed:
  • Thara Prabhakaran

    (University of Kerala)

  • Hiran H. Lathabai

    (University of Kerala)

  • Susan George

    (University of Kerala)

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a research field that has potential to drive the progress of mankind for the next few decades. Its application is found in every discipline, ranging from material science to space communication. Owing to its potential for ubiquity, and capability of replacing many general purpose technologies, co-existence of several paradigms are expected in nanotechnology. Flow Vergence (FV) gradient has been recently introduced as a metric to mine the network of scientific literature for detecting the paradigm shifts. In this paper, we have performed citation network analysis of scientific publications in nanotechnology from research area ‘engineering’ for identification of paradigms related to the same. Flow vergence gradient revealed 18 subnetworks that deal with 25 likely pivots of paradigm shifts. Major paradigm shifts can be found in the field of targeted drug delivery. Nanonetworks, a crossover of IT, BT and nanotechnology is the another interesting paradigm shift identified. An extended subnetwork analysis has been conducted to identify the competing or complementary nature of the emerging paradigms in the subnetworks. A framework for this has also been introduced. This analysis revealed that most of the paradigms in the targeted delivery are competing paradigms. Complementary paradigms are also identified in nano electronics and targeted drug delivery. Policy implications from this identification for various target groups are also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Thara Prabhakaran & Hiran H. Lathabai & Susan George, 2019. "Competing, complementary and co-existing paradigms in techno-scientific literature: A case study of Nanotechnology for engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 941-977, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03013-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03013-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03013-2
    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/s11192-019-03013-2?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. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    2. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Kumiko Miyazaki, 2013. "Evolutionary paths of change of emerging nanotechnological innovation systems: the case of ZnO nanostructures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 829-849, June.
    3. Palmberg, Christopher & Pajarinen, Mika & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Transferring Science-based Technologies to Industry - Does Nanotechnology Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers 1064, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    4. Ismael Rafols & Alan L. Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2010. "Science overlay maps: A new tool for research policy and library management," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1871-1887, September.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    6. Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2011. "Sustained endogenous growth driven by structured and evolving general purpose technologies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 563-593, October.
    7. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2001. "The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(2), pages 291-314, October.
    8. Thara Prabhakaran & Hiran H. Lathabai & Susan George & Manoj Changat, 2018. "Towards prediction of paradigm shifts from scientific literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1611-1644, December.
    9. Prabhakaran, Thara & Lathabai, Hiran H. & Changat, Manoj, 2015. "Detection of paradigm shifts and emerging fields using scientific network: A case study of Information Technology for Engineering," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 124-145.
    10. Lathabai, Hiran H. & Prabhakaran, Thara & Changat, Manoj, 2015. "Centrality and Flow Vergence gradient based Path analysis of scientific literature: A case study of Biotechnology for Engineering," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 429(C), pages 157-168.
    11. Vladimir Batagelj & Monika Cerinšek, 2013. "On bibliographic networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 845-864, September.
    12. Péter Érdi & Kinga Makovi & Zoltán Somogyvári & Katherine Strandburg & Jan Tobochnik & Péter Volf & László Zalányi, 2013. "Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 225-242, April.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff, 2007. "Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(9), pages 1303-1319, July.
    14. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan & Noyons, Ed C.M., 2010. "A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 629-635.
    15. Loet Leydesdorff, 2007. "Visualization of the citation impact environments of scientific journals: An online mapping exercise," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(1), pages 25-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thara Prabhakaran & Hiran H. Lathabai & Susan George & Manoj Changat, 2018. "Towards prediction of paradigm shifts from scientific literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1611-1644, December.
    2. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Martini, Antonella & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2017. "The light and shade of knowledge recombination: Insights from a general-purpose technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 154-165.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2017. "Contextual productivity assessment of authors and journals: a network scientometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 711-737, February.
    4. Korzinov, Vladimir & Savin, Ivan, 2018. "General Purpose Technologies as an emergent property," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 88-104.
    5. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. François Lafond & Daniel Kim, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of the U.S. patent classification system," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 631-664, April.
    7. Moehrle, Martin G. & Caferoglu, Hüseyin, 2019. "Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 776-784.
    8. Yanto Chandra, 2018. "Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990–2013): A scientometric analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    10. Jeong, Yujin & Park, Inchae & Yoon, Byungun, 2019. "Identifying emerging Research and Business Development (R&BD) areas based on topic modeling and visualization with intellectual property right data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 655-672.
    11. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    12. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.
    13. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Lin Zhang & Wenjing Zhao & Beibei Sun & Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2020. "How scientific research reacts to international public health emergencies: a global analysis of response patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 747-773, July.
    15. Xian Li & Ronald Rousseau & Liming Liang & Fangjie Xi & Yushuang Lü & Yifan Yuan & Xiaojun Hu, 2022. "Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2105-2122, April.
    16. Clifford Bekar & Kenneth Carlaw & Richard Lipsey, 2018. "General purpose technologies in theory, application and controversy: a review," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1005-1033, December.
    17. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    18. Yang, Chia-Hsuan & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2016. "Gains from others’ losses: Technology trajectories and the global division of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 724-745.
    19. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    20. Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Roper, Stephen, 2011. "Creating advantage in peripheral regions: The role of publicly funded R&D centres," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 832-841, July.

    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:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03013-2. 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.