IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v24y2015i1p30-36..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-disciplinary research: What configurations of fields of science are found in grant proposals today?

Author

Listed:
  • Rüdiger Mutz
  • Lutz Bornmann
  • Hans-Dieter Daniel

Abstract

Considering the complexity of the world problems, it seems evident that they do not fit straightforwardly into a disciplinary framework. In this context, the question arises as to whether and how frequently several disciplines cooperate on research projects. Cross-disciplinary cooperation in research might be difficult for two reasons. On one hand, many researchers feel that efforts to achieve methodological rigour, exactness, and control are only possible in the circumscribed area of a discipline. On the other hand, it is claimed that funding organizations, with their rigid disciplinary classification systems, impede cross-disciplinary research in the context of their selection and evaluation procedures. For a total of N = 8,496 grant proposals submitted to the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) from 1999 to 2009, detailed codings of the subdisciplines involved were available for the statistical analysis. Latent class analysis produced 12 latent classes or configurations of fields of science. Mono-disciplinary projects are very well represented in physics/astronomy/mechanics, geosciences, and clinical medicine. Cross-disciplinarity is found particularly in research project proposals of fields of science with clearly overlapping content (e.g. preclinical and clinical medicine) and mainly in research proposals submitted by fields of science within the humanities and social sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Rüdiger Mutz & Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2015. "Cross-disciplinary research: What configurations of fields of science are found in grant proposals today?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 30-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:24:y:2015:i:1:p:30-36.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvu023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline S. Wagner & Lutz Bornmann, 2018. "Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 567-592, February.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.

    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:oup:rseval:v:24:y:2015:i:1:p:30-36.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.