Scientometrics
本研究從傳播樣式(communication patterns)比較學科(disciplinary)與非學科(non-disciplinary)的知識生產形式，根據知識在研究領域之間流動的樣式與強度提出一個跨學科程度的測量指標，用來評估跨學科領域的發展。
Gibbons at al. (1994)對比知識生產的兩種模式，區別學科性和跨學科性。Mode 1是傳統研究物理或人類本質的"純粹"知識等理論學科，在組織結構與專業者較為同質，基於期刊系統以學科內的同儕互評(peer review)做為品質控制的方法。Mode 2的知識生產則是跨學科而且應用導向的，關注的研究在製成物與複雜系統的運作，在針對特定問題上特定情境，需要多元異質的組織與研究成員類型，品質控制的方式也較廣泛，不僅包括學術論文的同儕審查，也包括好用性(usability)和社會職責(social accountability)。
非學科的研究可視為結合來自多種學科的元素，在兩個或以上不同學科間的互動，來解決實務的問題，這些互動的範圍從想法的傳播與比較，資料、方法和程序的交換，到概念、理論、方法和知識論原理的相互整合。事實上對這種現象有許多不同的稱呼，包括multidisciplinary、interdisciplinary和transdisciplinarity。詳細來區分：multidisciplinary是指使用不同學科的觀點，從多個角度進行研究，但不僅不同學科的理論觀點沒有整合，同時也沒有整合研究發現。interdisciplinary則產生本身的理論、概念與方法，研究的結果不僅更連貫而且整合。transdisciplinarity被定義為interdisciplinary的後設理論(meta-theoreectical)觀點。Gibbons et al (1994)則認為interdisciplinary是明確地制定一個統一而跨越學科的術語體系以及共同的方法，transdisciplinary則更進一步建立在共同的理論性理解，並且必須伴隨著學科的認識論的相互滲透。
同一專業的研究者相互間比起在其他社群的研究者有更多的傳播，必且明顯的比引用圈外人更常引用彼此的作品，因此科學專業可視為傳播網路，在同一學科網路上的傳播比和其他專業的研究者更強。另一方面，一般預期在跨學科領域(interdisciplinary fields)內的討論其強度較小，而外部傳播的強度較大。多元學科研究領域(multidisciplinary research fields)的內部傳播強度會更小。
本研究對目標專業的期刊與期刊間的引用矩陣進行因素分析(factor analysis)，使具有類似引用樣式(citation patern)的期刊落於同一個因素上，並以核心期刊具有最高負荷(highest loading)的因素代表分析的領域，其他的因素則視為是相關的領域。以下面的幾個指標進行分析：
進行分析的期刊數量、因素分析獲得的因素數量：這兩個指標描繪整個分析的環境，數量愈小表示傳播網路愈具有選擇性。代表領域的因素在所有因素中的排名、代表領域的因素的解釋變異量、排名第一的因素的解釋變異量：如果代表領域的因素的排名愈後，代表這個領域在它本身的傳播網路上的主導性愈低，此時代表領域的因素的解釋變異量也通常愈小，排名第一的因素的解釋變異量則是顯示其他研究領域的主導性強弱。核心期刊在其負荷最高的因素中的排名：如果排名愈後，則通常在其他因素的解釋變異量會相對地較高，表示此期刊也屬於不同領域，這個指標可作為多元學科研究領域的指標。
The production of knowledge is dominantly organized in disciplines. At the same time, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research is developing at the boundaries of the scientific disciplines.
In this paper we compare disciplinary and non-disciplinary forms of knowledge production in terms of communication patterns.
We will suggest an indicator for measuring the degree of interdisciplinarity, and this allows us to evaluate the development of interdisciplinary fields. The indicator is based on the patterns and intensity of the knowledge streams between research fields. The communication of knowledge within a disciplinary field is expected to differ from the communication of knowledge within a non-disciplinary field.
Interdisciplinarity is an important and a complex issue. It is important as modern society increasingly demands application-oriented knowledge, and the usability of scientific knowledge generally requires the combination and integration of knowledge form various scientific disciplines.
Gibbons et al (1994) analyzed these changes by contrasting two modes of knowledge production, and the distinction between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity is in the core of their approach.
Mode 1 is the production of traditional ‘disciplinary science’, in which the academic interest in ‘pure’ knowledge prevails. The aim is to produce theoretical knowledge of (physical and human) nature. ... Consequently it is homogeneous in terms of organizational structures and practitioners, it is hierarchical, and relatively stable. Quality control is internal by peer review, and based on the journal system.
In contrast, Mode 2 is interdisciplinary and application-oriented knowledge production. The focus is not so much on discovering ‘laws of nature’ but on studying artifacts and the operation of complex systems. Examples are among others computer science, chemical engineering, and biotechnology. Mode 2 is heterogeneous, as a wider set of organizations and types of researchers are involved, operating in specific contexts on specific problems. Various different organizational forms co-exist within Mode 2, and research is not exclusively based in universities. The system of quality control is broader, and not only based on peer review of academic papers, and includes usability and social accountability.
The notion of interdisciplinarity is a difficult one, as many related concepts exist with various interpretations: multidisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, pluridisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. (Thompson 1990, 1995)
Non-disciplinary research then can be seen as ways of combining elements form various disciplines, as an interaction among two or more different disciplinary specialties, in order to answer practical questions and to solve practical problems. The interaction may range from communication and comparison of ideas, and the exchange of data, methods and procedures, to the mutual integration of organizing concepts, theories, methodology, and epistemological principles.
- In multidisciplinary research, the subject under study is approached from different angles, using different disciplinary perspectives. However, neither the theoretical perspectives nor the findings of the various disciplines are integrated in the end.
- An interdisciplinary approach, on the other hand, creates its own theoretical, conceptual and methodological identity. Consequently, the results of an interdisciplinary study of a certain problem are more coherent, and integrated.
- In the older use of the term, transdisciplinarity is defined as an interdisciplinary meta-theoretical perspective, like structuralism and Marxism (Thompson 1990).
- More recently, Gibbons et al (1994) use the concept of transdisciplinarity in a different way. In their view, interdisciplinary approaches are characterized by an explicit formulation of a uniform, discipline-transcending terminology or a common methodology. A transdisciplinary approach goes one step further, as it is based upon a common theoretical understanding, and must be accompanied by a mutual interpenetration of disciplinary epistemologies. In this view, a transdisciplinary field has a homogenized theory or model pool.
Researchers within a specialty communicate more with one another than with researchers in other communities, and they are expected to refer to one another's work significantly more frequently than to the work of outsiders. Scientific specialties can thus be considered as communication- networks (e.g., Griffith & Mullins, 1972; Shrum and Mullins 1988). The communication within a disciplinary network is much more intensive than the communication with researchers in other specialties (e.g., McCain 1990).
On the other hand, within interdisciplinary fields the intensity of the internal discussion is expected to be less, and external communication more intensive, as interdisciplinary fields draw more intensively upon various other specialties than disciplinary research fields do. For multidisciplinary research fields, this is expected to be even stronger, as in these fields integration of the various perspectives is almost absent, and consequently, the level of internal communication is expected to be very low.
Over the years, various indicators have been developed to describe multidisciplinary (Glänzel et al 1999), crossdisciplinary (Porter & Chubin 1985), and interdisciplinary (Thijssen 1992; McCain & Whitney 1994; Tomov & Mutafov 1996; McCain 1998) research.
In other words, we delineate the non-disciplinary field in the same way as disciplines, and then we will identify the specific way they are embedded within the network of related disciplines. By mapping research fields in various years, we are able to analyze the development of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary fields. ... This implies that they become less dominated by the traditional disciplines in their environment, and become more internally coherent.
We use a method for delineating specialties as described elsewhere. (Van den Besselaar & Leydesdorff 1996) It comes down to a factor analysis of the journal- journal citations matrix of the core journal of a specialty.
A factor analysis of this matrix results in factors consisting of journals that have similar citation patterns. The factor on which the core journal has it highest loading represents the field under study. The other factors represent a set of research fields that are related to the field under study.
- Column 2: The number of journals within the relational environment.
- Column 3: The number of factors resulting from the factor analysis.
The second and the third columns show how restricted the environment of the field under study is. The lower the number of journals and factors, the more selective the communication network is, and the more codified the communication.
- Column 4: The rank of the factor that does represent the field under study.
- Column 6: The explained variance by the factor representing the field under study.
- Column 7: The explained variance by the first factor, if this is another factor than in column 6.
The fourth column shows the rank of the factor that represents the field under study. The lower this is, the less dominant the field under study is within its own communication network. This is reflected in column six which shows the explained variance of the factor representing the field under study. In case this factor is not the first one, we also give in column seven the explained variance by the first factor, to show how strongly other research fields dominate the communication system.
- Column 5: The rank of the core journal within the factor it has its highest loading on.
- Column 8: The nature of the specialties represented by the various factors.
沒有留言:
張貼留言