IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v62y2011i6p1118-1129.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan M. Levitt
  • Mike Thelwall
  • Charles Oppenheim

Abstract

Increasing interdisciplinarity has been a policy objective since the 1990s, promoted by many governments and funding agencies, but the question is: How deeply has this affected the social sciences? Although numerous articles have suggested that research has become more interdisciplinary, yet no study has compared the extent to which the interdisciplinarity of different social science subjects has changed. To address this gap, changes in the level of interdisciplinarity since 1980 are investigated for subjects with many articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), using the percentage of cross‐disciplinary citing documents (PCDCD) to evaluate interdisciplinarity. For the 14 SSCI subjects investigated, the median level of interdisciplinarity, as measured using cross‐disciplinary citations, declined from 1980 to 1990, but rose sharply between 1990 and 2000, confirming previous research. This increase was not fully matched by an increase in the percentage of articles that were assigned to more than one subject category. Nevertheless, although on average the social sciences have recently become more interdisciplinary, the extent of this change varies substantially from subject to subject. The SSCI subject with the largest increase in interdisciplinarity between 1990 and 2000 was Information Science & Library Science (IS&LS) but there is evidence that the level of interdisciplinarity of IS&LS increased less quickly during the first decade of this century.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan M. Levitt & Mike Thelwall & Charles Oppenheim, 2011. "Variations between subjects in the extent to which the social sciences have become more interdisciplinary," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1118-1129, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:62:y:2011:i:6:p:1118-1129
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21539
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.21539?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shiji Chen & Clément Arsenault & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1307-1323, February.
    2. Yu-Wei Chang, 2019. "Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 81-104, October.
    3. Xie, Yundong & Wu, Qiang & Zhang, Peng & Li, Xingchen, 2020. "Information Science and Library Science (IS-LS) journal subject categorisation and comparison based on editorship information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Meijun Liu & Xiao Hu & Jiang Li, 2018. "Knowledge flow in China’s humanities and social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 607-626, March.
    5. Shunshun Shi & Wenyu Zhang & Shuai Zhang & Jie Chen, 2018. "Does prestige dimension influence the interdisciplinary performance of scientific entities in knowledge flow? Evidence from the e-government field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1237-1264, November.
    6. Hongyu Zhou & Raf Guns & Tim C. E. Engels, 2022. "Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? Evidence from publications 1960–2014," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1201-1221, September.
    7. Tracy Klarenbeek & Nelius Boshoff, 2018. "Measuring multidisciplinary health research at South African universities: a comparative analysis based on co-authorships and journal subject categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1461-1485, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Alexandre Truc & Olivier Santerre & Yves Gingras & François Claveau, 2023. "The interdisciplinarity of economics," Post-Print hal-04719259, HAL.
    10. Yu-Wei Chang, 2018. "Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1589-1613, September.
    11. Mu-hsuan Huang & Wang-Ching Shaw & Chi-Shiou Lin, 2019. "One category, two communities: subfield differences in “Information Science and Library Science” in Journal Citation Reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1059-1079, May.
    12. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    13. Chen, Shiji & Arsenault, Clément & Larivière, Vincent, 2015. "Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1034-1046.
    14. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jamist:v:62:y:2011:i:6:p:1118-1129. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    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.