Prominent but Less Productive
By Erin Leahey, Christine M. Beckman, Taryn Stanko. arXiv.org, 2015
343 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Federal agencies and universities in the U.S. promote interdisciplinary research because it presumably spurs transformative, innovative science. Using data on almost 900 research-center–based scientists and their 32,000 published articles, along with a set of unpublished papers, we assess whether such research is indeed beneficial and whether costs accompany the potential benefits. Existing research highlights this tension: whereas the innovation literature suggests that spanning disciplines is beneficial because it allows scientists to see connections across fields, the categories literature suggests that spanning disciplines is penalized because the resulting research may be lower quality or confusing to place. To investigate this, we empirically distinguish production and reception effects and highlight a new production penalty: lower productivity, which may be attributable to cognitive and collaborative challenges associated with interdisciplinary research and/or hurdles in the review process. Using an innovative measure of interdisciplinary research that considers the similarity of the disciplines spanned, we document both penalties (fewer papers published) and benefits (increased citations) associated with it and show that it is a high-risk, high-reward endeavor, one that partly depends on field-level interdisciplinarity.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Information Systems and Management, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ec13343a7cb93ea95a895f0b4582f7902e1ce30c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In Information Systems and Management
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity (2017, background): “that category-spanning organizations are more difficult for audiences to comprehend (Hsu et al., 2009; Leahey et al., 2017).”