Hackett Edward J, Leahey Erin, Parker John N, Rafols Ismael, Hampton Stephanie E, Corte Ugo, Chavarro Diego, Drake John M, Penders Bart, Sheble Laura, Vermeulen Niki, Vision Todd J
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University and Vice Provost for Research and Professor, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.
School of Sociology, University of Arizona.
Res Policy. 2021 Jan;50(1):104069. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104069.
Synthesis centers are a form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Synthesis working groups are a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that produce consequential, high-impact publications. But no one has asked if synthesis working groups synthesize: are their publications substantially more diverse than others, and if so, in what ways and with what effect? We investigate these questions by using Latent Dirichlet Analysis to compare the topical diversity of papers published by synthesis center collaborations with that of papers in a reference corpus. Topical diversity was operationalized and measured in several ways, both to reflect aggregate diversity and to emphasize particular aspects of diversity (such as variety, evenness, and balance). Synthesis center publications have greater topical variety and evenness, but less disparity, than do papers in the reference corpus. The influence of synthesis center origins on aspects of diversity is only partly mediated by the size and heterogeneity of collaborations: when taking into account the numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references, synthesis center origins retain a significant direct effect on diversity measures. Controlling for the size and heterogeneity of collaborative groups, synthesis center origins and diversity measures significantly influence the visibility of publications, as indicated by citation measures. We conclude by suggesting social processes within collaborations that might account for the observed effects, by inviting further exploration of what this novel textual analysis approach might reveal about interdisciplinary research, and by offering some practical implications of our results.
综合中心是一种科学组织形式,它催化并支持跨空间或时间尺度整合不同理论、方法和数据的研究,以提高科学解释的普遍性、简约性、适用性或实证可靠性。综合工作组是一种独特的科学合作形式,能产出具有重要意义和高影响力的出版物。但还没有人问过综合工作组是否进行了综合:它们的出版物是否比其他出版物在实质上更加多样化?如果是,在哪些方面以及产生了什么影响?我们通过使用潜在狄利克雷分析来比较综合中心合作发表的论文与参考语料库中论文的主题多样性,从而研究这些问题。主题多样性通过多种方式进行操作化和测量,既反映总体多样性,也强调多样性的特定方面(如种类、均匀性和平衡性)。与参考语料库中的论文相比,综合中心的出版物具有更大的主题种类和均匀性,但差异较小。综合中心的起源对多样性各方面的影响仅部分由合作的规模和异质性介导:在考虑作者数量、不同机构和参考文献数量时,综合中心的起源对多样性指标仍有显著的直接影响。控制合作团体的规模和异质性后,综合中心的起源和多样性指标对出版物的可见性有显著影响,这由引用指标表明。我们通过提出合作中的社会过程来解释观察到的效果,邀请进一步探索这种新颖的文本分析方法可能揭示的跨学科研究内容,并给出我们研究结果的一些实际意义来得出结论。