4.5 Article

Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention

期刊

SCIENTOMETRICS
卷 117, 期 2, 页码 973-995

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2897-1

关键词

Interdisciplinary formation; Joint attention; Keyword evolution; Interdisciplinary communication; 94A05; D83

资金

  1. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China [2016B030303003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research (IDF) is critically important for the promotion of interdisciplinary development. In this paper, we adopt extracted keywords to investigate the features of interdisciplinarity development, as well as the distinct roles that different participating domains play in various periods, and detect potential barriers among domains. We take joint attention (JA) as the study domain, since it has undergone a development process from a topic of one domain to interdisciplinary research (IDR). Our empirical study has yielded interesting findings. First, we detect the phenomenon of knowledge diffusion as it evolved through three domains of JA. It enabled us to observe the shift of roles the domains played during the process of IDF, as well as the existence of potential barriers among these domains. Second, according to the diffusion and development process of JA among domains, three phases that an IDR field in general goes through were identified: a latent phase, an embryo phase, and a mature phase. Third, domains may play different roles in distinct periods, with the formation of IDR. Four roles are identified: knowledge origin, knowledge receiver, knowledge respondent, and interdisciplinary participant. This paper showcases how to detect the evolution of IDR by analyzing keyword evolution. By giving the profiles of IDR fields and descriptions of keyword evolution, it would be valuable for policy makers and regulators to promote IDR development.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据