Skip to main content
Kent Academic Repository

How Cross-disciplinary is Bionanotechnology? Explorations in the Specialty of Molecular Motors?

Rafols, Ismael, Meyer, Martin S. (2007) How Cross-disciplinary is Bionanotechnology? Explorations in the Specialty of Molecular Motors? Scientometrics, 70 (3). pp. 633-650. ISSN 0138-9130. (doi:10.1007/s11192-007-0305-3) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided) (KAR id:33700)

The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided.
Official URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0305-3

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been presented in the policy discourse as an intrinsically interdisciplinary field, requiring collaborations among researchers with different backgrounds, and specific funding schemes supporting knowledge-integration activities. Early bibliometric studies supported this interdisciplinary vision (Meyer & Persson, 1998), but recent results suggest that nanotechnology is (yet) a mixed bag with various mono-disciplinary subfields (Schummer, 2004). We have reexamined the issue at the research project level, carrying out five case studies in molecular motors, a specialty of bionanotechnology. Relying both in data from interviews and bibliometric indicators, we have developed a multidimensional analysis (Sanz-Menéndez et al., 2001) in order to explore the extent and types of cross-disciplinary practices in each project. We have found that there is a consistent high degree of cross-disciplinarity in the cognitive practices of research (i.e., use of references and instrumentalities) but a more erratic and narrower degree in the social dimensions (i.e., affiliation and researchers’ background). This suggests that cross-disciplinarity is an eminently epistemic characteristic and that bibliometric indicators based on citations and references capture more accurately the generation of cross-disciplinary knowledge than approaches tracking co-authors’ disciplinary affiliations. In the light of these findings we raise the question whether policies focusing on formal collaborations between laboratories are the most appropriate to facilitate cross-disciplinary knowledge acquisition and generation.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1007/s11192-007-0305-3
Subjects: H Social Sciences > H Social Sciences (General)
Divisions: Divisions > Kent Business School - Division > Kent Business School (do not use)
Depositing User: Martin Meyer
Date Deposited: 25 Apr 2013 12:49 UTC
Last Modified: 05 Nov 2024 10:16 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/33700 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)

University of Kent Author Information

Meyer, Martin S..

Creator's ORCID:
CReDIT Contributor Roles:
  • Depositors only (login required):

Total unique views for this document in KAR since July 2020. For more details click on the image.