This study presents knowledge diffusion analyses for researchers who have been active in the social sciences and humanities. We compare a network based on switches between the main disciplinary classifications of the documents authored throughout their careers to a discipline similarity network. We find that researchers are not exclusively switching between disciplines that are most similar cognitively. Only less than a third of the authors do not switch between disciplines. On the level of the individual researchers, we also study how the cognitive distance travelled relates to boundary crossing. The cognitive distance authors travel is approximated by calculating cosine distances between the vectors of title records for different periods of activity. Moving to new disciplines is found to be positively related to the cognitive distance an author travels throughout her career. Increased specialisation leading to different types of disciplinary boundary work is suggested as a potential explanation for this finding.
JacobsJ.In defense of disciplines: interdisciplinarity and specialization in the research university. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 273.
SugimotoCRWeingartS.The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. J Document2015; 71: 775–794.
4.
SīleLGunsRVandermoereF, et al. Tracing the context in disciplinary classifications: a bibliometric pairwise comparison of five classifications of journals in the social sciences and humanities. Quant Sci Stud2021; 2: 65–88.
5.
StichwehR.The sociology of scientific disciplines: on the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Sci Cont1992; 5: 3–15.
6.
StichwehR.Differentiation of scientific disciplines: causes and consequences. Encyclopedia of life support systems. Paris: UNESCO, 2003.
7.
CampbellDT.Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: SherifCSherifW (eds) Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1969, pp. 328–348.
8.
WeingartP.Growth, differentiation, expansion and change of identity – the future of science. In: JoergesBNowotnyH (eds) Social studies of science and technology: looking back, ahead. Dordrecht: Springer, 2003, pp. 183–200.
9.
LarivièreVGingrasY.Measuring interdisciplinarity. In: CroninBSugimotoCR (eds) Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014, pp. 1–26.
10.
RiniaEJvan LeeuwenTNBruinsEEW, et al. Measuring knowledge transfer between fields of science. Scientometrics2002; 54: 347–362.
YanEDingY.Scholarly network similarities: how bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2012; 63: 1313–1326.
13.
LockettAMcWilliamsA.The balance of trade between disciplines: do we effectively manage knowledge?J Manage Inq2005; 14: 139–150.
14.
LiuMHuXLiJ.Knowledge flow in China’s humanities and social sciences. Qual Quant2018; 52: 607–626.
15.
LiuMShiDLiJ.Double-edged sword of interdisciplinary knowledge flow from hard sciences to humanities and social sciences: evidence from China. PLoS ONE2017; 12: e0184977.
16.
HargensLL.Migration patterns of U. S. Ph. D. S among disciplines and specialties. Scientometrics1986; 9: 145–164.
17.
ChubinDE.State of the field the conceptualization of scientific specialties. Sociol Quart1976; 17: 448–476.
18.
Le PairC. Switching between academic disciplines in universities in the Netherlands. Scientometrics1980; 2: 177–191.
19.
Van HoutenJvan VurenHGLe PairsC, et al. Migration of physicists to other academic disciplines: situation in the Netherlands. Scientometrics1983; 5: 257–267.
20.
UrataH.Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics1990; 18: 309–319.
21.
ChakrabortyTTammanaVGangulyN, et al. Understanding and modeling diverse scientific careers of researchers. J Inform2015; 9: 69–78.
22.
FerreiraMRCostasR.Doing as the Romans do? A comparative analysis of the thematic profile of newcomers and already existing faculty at universities. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (ISSI 2021) (eds GlänzelWHeefferSChiPS, et al.), Leuven, 12–15 July 2021, pp. 401–406. Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI).
De DomenicoMOmodeiEArenasA. Quantifying the diaspora of knowledge in the last century. Appl Netw Sci2016; 1: 15.
25.
AletaAMeloniSPerraN, et al. Explore with caution: mapping the evolution of scientific interest in physics. EPJ Data Sci2019; 8: 27.
26.
MilojevićS.Quantifying the cognitive extent of science. J Inform2015; 9: 962–973.
27.
JiaTWangDSzymanskiBK.Quantifying patterns of research-interest evolution. Nat Hum Behav2017; 1: 0078.
28.
GoyanesMDemeterMChengZ, et al. Measuring publication diversity among the most productive scholars: how research trajectories differ in communication, psychology, and political science. Scientometrics2022; 127: 3661–3682.
29.
YuXSzymanskiBKJiaT.Become a better you: correlation between the change of research direction and the change of scientific performance. J Inform2021; 15: 101193.
30.
LiuYRousseauR.Knowledge diffusion through publications and citations: a case study using ESI-fields as unit of diffusion. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2010; 61: 340–351.
31.
UrbanD.Mobility and the growth of science. Soc Stud Sci1982; 12: 409–433.
32.
VerleysenFTGhesquièrePEngelsTCE. The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). In: BlockmansWEngwallLWeaireD (eds) Bibliometrics: use and abuse in the review of research performance. London: Portland Press Ltd., 2014, pp. 117–127.
33.
EngelsTCEGunsR. The Flemish performance-based research funding system: a unique variant of the Norwegian model. J Data Inform Sci2018; 3: 45–60.
34.
GunsRSīleLEykensJ, et al. A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics2018; 116: 1093–1111.
35.
OECD. Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. Report no. JT03222603, Paris: Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, 2007.
36.
Van EckNWaltmanL. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics2010; 84: 523–538.
37.
ClausetANewmanMEJMooreC.Finding community structure in very large networks. Phys Rev E2004; 70: 066111.
38.
KatznerDW.Why mathematics in economics?J Post Keyn Econ2003; 25: 561–574.
39.
WyattS.A computational turn in the humanities? A perspective from science and technology studies. J Siber Feder Univ Hum Soc Sci2016; 9: 517–524.
40.
ConteRGilbertNBonelliG, et al. Manifesto of computational social science. Eur Phys J Spec Top2012; 214: 325–346.
41.
TrucASanterreOGingrasY, et al. The interdisciplinarity of economics. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2020.
42.
SmallHCraneD.Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics1979; 1: 445–461.
43.
AbbottA.Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
44.
WaskomML.Seaborn: statistical data visualization. J Open Sour Softw2021; 6: 3021.
45.
OssenblokTLBVerleysenFTEngelsTCE.Coauthorship of journal articles and book chapters in the social sciences and humanities (2000–2010). J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2014; 65: 882–897.
46.
VugteveenPLendersRVan den BesselaarP.The dynamics of interdisciplinary research fields: the case of river research. Scientometrics2014; 100: 73–96.
