Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology

Scientometrics

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 425-465

  Schummer, Joachim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243086879     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.38     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. BENSAUDE-VINCENT, B. (2001), The construction of a discipline: Materials science in the United States, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 31: 223-248.
2. BMBF, Nanotechnologie in Deutschland: Standortbestimmung, 2002.
3. BRAUN, T., A. SCHUBERT, S. ZSINDELY (1997), Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance, Scientometrics, 38 (2): 321-325.
4. BUDWORTH, D. W. (1996), Overview of Activities on Nanotechnology and Related Technology, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
5. GIBBONS, M., C. LIMOGES, H. NOWOTNY, S. SCHWARTZMAN, P. SCOTT, P. TROW (1994), The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London.
6. KATZ, J. S., D. HICKS (1995), The classification of interdisciplinary journals: A new approach, In: M. E. D. KOENIG, A. BOOKSTEIN, (Eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. Learned Information, Melford, pp. 245-254.
7. KATZ, J. S., B. R. MARTIN (1997), What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26: 1-18.
8. KLEIN, J. TH. (1990), Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory & Practice, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.
9. KHOSLA, R. P. (2002), Nanotechnology in Japan, National Science Foundation, Tokyo Regional Office, Special Scientific Report #02-07, June 12.
10. MALSCH, I. (1997a), The Importance of Interdisciplinary Approaches: The Case of Nanotechnology. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville
11. MALSCH, I. (1997b), Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-Areas, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
12. MALSCH, I. (1999), Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific trends and organizational dynamics, Nanotechnology, 10: 1-7.
13. MEYER, M. (2000), Patent citations in a novel field of technology: What can they tell about interactions of emerging communities of science and technology?, Scientometrics, 48: 151-178.
14. MEYER, M. (2001), Patent citations in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology, Scientometrics, 51: 163-183.
15. MEYER, M., O. PERSSON (1998), Nanotechnology interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application, Scientometrics, 42 (2): 195-205.
16. MEYER, M., O. PERSSON, Y. POWER (2001), Nanotechnology Expert Group and Eurotech Data, Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies. Preparatory Study for the European Commission, DG Research, [http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/pdf/ nanoexpertgroupreport.pdf].
17. MORILLO, F., M. BORDONS, I. GÓMEZ (2001), An appoach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 51: 203-222.
18. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC), COMMITTEE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE, DIVISION ON ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES (2002), Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 12.
19. NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL (NSTC) (2000), National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan. Washington, D.C., July, p. 13 [http://www.nano.gov/nni2.pdf]
20. PORTER, A. L., D. E. CHUBIN (1985), An indicator of cross-disciplinary research, Scientometrics, 8: 161-176.
21. QIN, J., F. W. LANCASTER, B. ALLEN (1997), Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48: 893-916.
22. QIU, L. (1992), A study of interdisciplinary research collaboration, Research Evaluation, 2: 169-175.
23. ROCO, M. C., W. S. BAINBRIDGE (Eds) (2002), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and the Cognitive Science, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
24. SCHUMMER, J. (2003), Chemical versus biological explanation: Interdisciplinarity and reductionism in the 19th-century life sciences, In: J. E. EARLEY (Ed.), Chemical Explanation: Characteristics, Development, Autonomy, New York (Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 988), pp. 269-281.
25. SCHUMMER, J., Interdisciplinary issues in nanoscale research, In: D. BAIRD, A. NORDMANN, J. SCHUMMER (Eds), Discovering the Nanoscale, book in preparation; electronic prepublication at http://www.cla.sc.edu/cpecs/nirt/ papers.html
26. STANG, P. J. (2003), Editorial: 124 years of publishing original and primary chemical research, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125: 1-8.
27. TIJSSEN, R. J. W. (1992), A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: coclassification analysis of energy research, Research Policy, 21: 27-44.
28. TOMOV, D. T., H. G. MUTAFOV (1996), Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science, Scientometrics, 37: 267-278.