On the emergence of interdisciplinary scientific fields: (how) does it relate to science convergence?

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Research Policy Pub Date : 2024-05-21 DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105026
Philipp Baaden , Michael Rennings , Marcus John , Stefanie Bröring
{"title":"On the emergence of interdisciplinary scientific fields: (how) does it relate to science convergence?","authors":"Philipp Baaden ,&nbsp;Michael Rennings ,&nbsp;Marcus John ,&nbsp;Stefanie Bröring","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Interdisciplinary scientific fields, such as synthetic biology, bioinformatics, and human brain science, often emerge at the intersection of existing scientific disciplines. This fundamental process is described in the literature streams of ‘science convergence’ and the ‘evolution of new scientific fields’. However, despite their empirical relevance and the potential for science convergence to accelerate the evolution of these new fields, the two concepts have been developed separately up to this point. In this study, we therefore investigate the interplay between the two concepts by first conducting a systematic review of the literature on science convergence to examine its underlying dynamics. We then integrate the concept of science convergence into the current understanding of the evolutionary process of new scientific fields, leading to a new theoretical conceptualization and typology of the different pathways in the evolution of interdisciplinary scientific fields. The pathways exhibit varying levels of interdisciplinary research activities at different stages of the evolutionary process. We apply this typology to cases of synthetic biology, bioinformatics, and human brain science, illustrating how science convergence and an early emphasis on interdisciplinary research activities drive the evolutionary process of a new scientific field. In essence, our typology and its related proxies enable policymakers and other actors to understand how science convergence gives rise to new interdisciplinary scientific fields.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000751/pdfft?md5=8a95c4ddf63bc5b1aeaa876a521d3abd&pid=1-s2.0-S0048733324000751-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000751","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Interdisciplinary scientific fields, such as synthetic biology, bioinformatics, and human brain science, often emerge at the intersection of existing scientific disciplines. This fundamental process is described in the literature streams of ‘science convergence’ and the ‘evolution of new scientific fields’. However, despite their empirical relevance and the potential for science convergence to accelerate the evolution of these new fields, the two concepts have been developed separately up to this point. In this study, we therefore investigate the interplay between the two concepts by first conducting a systematic review of the literature on science convergence to examine its underlying dynamics. We then integrate the concept of science convergence into the current understanding of the evolutionary process of new scientific fields, leading to a new theoretical conceptualization and typology of the different pathways in the evolution of interdisciplinary scientific fields. The pathways exhibit varying levels of interdisciplinary research activities at different stages of the evolutionary process. We apply this typology to cases of synthetic biology, bioinformatics, and human brain science, illustrating how science convergence and an early emphasis on interdisciplinary research activities drive the evolutionary process of a new scientific field. In essence, our typology and its related proxies enable policymakers and other actors to understand how science convergence gives rise to new interdisciplinary scientific fields.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
跨学科科学领域的出现:(如何)与科学趋同有关?
合成生物学、生物信息学和人类脑科学等跨学科科学领域往往出现在现有科学学科的交叉点上。这一基本过程在文献流中被描述为 "科学融合 "和 "新科学领域的演变"。然而,尽管这两个概念具有实证相关性,而且科学融合有可能加速这些新领域的演变,但迄今为止,这两个概念一直是分开发展的。因此,在本研究中,我们首先对有关科学趋同的文献进行了系统回顾,以研究其基本动态,从而探讨这两个概念之间的相互作用。然后,我们将科学趋同的概念与当前对新科学领域演化过程的理解结合起来,从而对跨学科科学领域演化过程中的不同路径进行了新的理论概念化和类型化。在演化过程的不同阶段,这些路径表现出不同程度的跨学科研究活动。我们将这一类型学应用于合成生物学、生物信息学和人类脑科学的案例,说明科学趋同和早期对跨学科研究活动的重视如何推动新科学领域的演化过程。从本质上讲,我们的类型学及其相关代用指标使政策制定者和其他参与者能够理解科学趋同是如何催生新的跨学科科学领域的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
期刊最新文献
Transformation of the governance of failure for radical innovation: The role of strategic leaders How media portrayal of CEO overconfidence impacts radical innovation The determinants of parallel invention: Measuring the role of information sharing and personal interaction between inventors Do the elite university projects promote scientific research competitiveness: Evidence from NSFC grants The bidirectional causality of tie stability and innovation performance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1