Scholarlink

<p>In this paper, we discuss Loet Leydesdorff’s extensive contributions to the understanding and measurement of&#xa0;interdisciplinarity. Apart from that, we summarize a series of issues in the debate about interdisciplinarity and suggest how to move forward. Leaving out the innovative work on visualization and animation, we distinguish three different approaches to measuring interdisciplinarity: (i) mapping interdisciplinary fields based on similarities between referencing patterns of sets of journals; (ii) betweenness centrality as indicator of interdisciplinarity of individual journals, and (iii) diversity of references of individual journals (and papers) as indicator of interdisciplinarity of those individual journals. After various tests the conclusion is that both the second and third approach&#xa0;are not useful as indicators for interdisciplinarity. Betweenness centrality measures multidisciplinarity at best, and diversity of referencing measures diversity of knowledge inputs, but not interdisciplinarity as a knowledge&#xa0;output. The problems with both approaches basically relate to the problem of how to define, measure and map the dynamics of research fields, which bring us back to the first approach mentioned above. We argue why it is worthwhile to develop that further in order to better understand the nature and role of interdisciplinary research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Circling around interdisciplinarity

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月1日

查看全文
  • Peter van den Besselaar

摘要

In this paper, we discuss Loet Leydesdorff’s extensive contributions to the understanding and measurement of interdisciplinarity. Apart from that, we summarize a series of issues in the debate about interdisciplinarity and suggest how to move forward. Leaving out the innovative work on visualization and animation, we distinguish three different approaches to measuring interdisciplinarity: (i) mapping interdisciplinary fields based on similarities between referencing patterns of sets of journals; (ii) betweenness centrality as indicator of interdisciplinarity of individual journals, and (iii) diversity of references of individual journals (and papers) as indicator of interdisciplinarity of those individual journals. After various tests the conclusion is that both the second and third approach are not useful as indicators for interdisciplinarity. Betweenness centrality measures multidisciplinarity at best, and diversity of referencing measures diversity of knowledge inputs, but not interdisciplinarity as a knowledge output. The problems with both approaches basically relate to the problem of how to define, measure and map the dynamics of research fields, which bring us back to the first approach mentioned above. We argue why it is worthwhile to develop that further in order to better understand the nature and role of interdisciplinary research.