IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0113901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social and Natural Sciences Differ in Their Research Strategies, Adapted to Work for Different Knowledge Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Jaffe

Abstract

Do different fields of knowledge require different research strategies? A numerical model exploring different virtual knowledge landscapes, revealed two diverging optimal search strategies. Trend following is maximized when the popularity of new discoveries determine the number of individuals researching it. This strategy works best when many researchers explore few large areas of knowledge. In contrast, individuals or small groups of researchers are better in discovering small bits of information in dispersed knowledge landscapes. Bibliometric data of scientific publications showed a continuous bipolar distribution of these strategies, ranging from natural sciences, with highly cited publications in journals containing a large number of articles, to the social sciences, with rarely cited publications in many journals containing a small number of articles. The natural sciences seem to adapt their research strategies to landscapes with large concentrated knowledge clusters, whereas social sciences seem to have adapted to search in landscapes with many small isolated knowledge clusters. Similar bipolar distributions were obtained when comparing levels of insularity estimated by indicators of international collaboration and levels of country-self citations: researchers in academic areas with many journals such as social sciences, arts and humanities, were the most isolated, and that was true in different regions of the world. The work shows that quantitative measures estimating differences between academic disciplines improve our understanding of different research strategies, eventually helping interdisciplinary research and may be also help improve science policies worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Jaffe, 2014. "Social and Natural Sciences Differ in Their Research Strategies, Adapted to Work for Different Knowledge Landscapes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113901
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113901
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113901&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0113901?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandre Truc, 2023. "Neuroeconomics: Hype or Hope? An Answer," Post-Print hal-04719266, HAL.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    3. Julián D. Cortés, 2022. "Identifying the dissension in management and business research in Latin America and the Caribbean via co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7111-7125, December.
    4. Harrison, Richard T., 2023. "W(h)ither entrepreneurship? Discipline, legitimacy and super-wicked problems on the road to nowhere," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    5. Muñoz-Écija, Teresa & Vargas-Quesada, Benjamín & Chinchilla Rodríguez, Zaida, 2019. "Coping with methods for delineating emerging fields: Nanoscience and nanotechnology as a case study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    6. Giulio Giacomo Cantone, 2024. "How to measure interdisciplinary research? A systemic design for the model of measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(8), pages 4937-4982, August.
    7. Pei-Shan Chi & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2022. "An article-based cross-disciplinary study of reference literature for indicator improvement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7077-7089, December.
    8. Mario Coccia, 2020. "The evolution of scientific disciplines in applied sciences: dynamics and empirical properties of experimental physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 451-487, July.
    9. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    10. John G. Benjafield, 2020. "Vocabulary sharing among subjects belonging to the hierarchy of sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1965-1982, December.
    11. Mario Coccia, 2021. "Evolution and structure of research fields driven by crises and environmental threats: the COVID-19 research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9405-9429, December.

    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:plo:pone00:0113901. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.