A fundamental question in the field of social studies of science is how research fields emerge, grow and decline over time and space. This study confronts this question here by developing an inductive analysis of emerging research fields represented by human microbiome, evolutionary robotics and astrobiology. In particular, number of papers from starting years to 2017 of each emerging research field is analyzed considering the subject areas (i.e., disciplines) of authors. Findings suggest some empirical laws of the evolution of research fields: the first law states that the evolution of a specific research field is driven by few scientific disciplines (3- 5) that generate more than 80% of documents (concentration of the scientific production); the second law states that the evolution of research fields is path-dependent of a critical discipline (it can be a native discipline that has originated the research field or a new discipline emerged during the social dynamics of science); the third law states that a research field can be driven during its evolution by a new discipline originated by a process of specialization within science. The findings here can explain and generalize, whenever possible some properties of the evolution of scientific fields that are due to interaction between disciplines, convergence between basic and applied research fields and interdisciplinary in scientific research. Overall, then, this study begins the process of clarifying and generalizing, as far as possible, the properties of the social construction and evolution of science to lay a foundation for the development of sophisticated theories.
The purpose of this study is to analyses how research fields evolve in order to explain, whenever possible, some properties of the social construction and evolution of science.
The role of science in society has been exploded in the last fifty years (Coccia, 2018;Freeman, 1960;Merton, 1968;Ecklund et al., 2016;Stephan, 1996). Freedman (1960, p. 3) argues that: “Science is a form of human activity through pursuit of which mankind acquires an increasingly fuller and more accurate knowledge and understanding of nature, past, present and future, and an increasing capacity to adapt itself to and to change its environment and to modify its own characteristics”. Kuhn (1962, pp.1-2) claimed that: “If science is the constellation of facts, theories, and methods collected in current texts, then scientists are the men who, successfully or not, have striven to contribute one or another element to that particular constellation. Scientific development becomes the piecemeal process by which these items have been added, singly and in combination, to the ever growing stockpile that constitutes scientific technique and knowledge”. Kuhn (1962) also states that vital discoveries (or breakthroughs), based on a long-run development of “normal science”, include not only radical changes that have a significant impact on several research fields, but also scientific changes whose consequences are within a specific scientific discipline in which the change has taken place (cf., Andersen, 1998). Lakatos (1978, p. 168, original Italics and emphasis) argues that: science . . . can be regarded as a huge research program . . . .progressive and degenerating problem-shifts in series of successive theories. But in history of science we find a continuity which connects such series. . . . The programme consists of methodological rules: some tell us what paths of research to avoid (negative heuristic), and others what paths to pursue (positive heuristic) -By ‘path of research’ I mean an objective concept describing something in the Platonic ’third world’ of ideas: a series of successive theories, each one ’eliminating’ its predecessors (in footnote 57) -. . . . What I have primarily in mind is not science as a whole, but rather particular research-programmes, such as the one known as ‘Cartesian metaphysics. . . . a ‘metaphysical’ research-programme to look behind all phenomena (and theories) for A discipline is a concept that derives from Latin disciplina, derivation of discěre= to learn. In science, discipline is a system of norms, theories and principles, organized, systematized and based on specific methods of inquiry that investigate phenomena in nature and society. A research field is a sub-set of a discipline that investigates specific topics and/or phenomena to solve theoretical and practical problems that generate discoveries and/or science advances of applied and/or basic sciences. The complex factors supporting research fields emerge in specific contexts and subjects, such as leading universities and/or research labs, outstanding scholars and/or fruitful collaborations between scholars of different disciplines (cf., Coccia and Wang, 2016;Stephan, 1996). Many studies of science analyze international collaboration between organizations for its impetus in advancing scientific production and fostering breakthroughs. Coccia andWang (2016, p. 2057) reveal that patterns of international collaboration are generating a convergence between applied and basic sciences.
Social studies of science argue that the origin and evolution of new scientific fields can be due to discoveries and/or scientific breakthroughs driven by interdisciplinary between applied and theoretical disciplines, such as nanomedicine (originated from interaction between physics, engineering, biology and medicine), biotechnology, etc. (Sun et al., 2013;cf., De Solla Price, 1986;Latour, 1987;Latour and Woolgar, 1979;Mulkay, 1975). Morillo et al. (2003Morillo et al. ( , p. 1237) claim that science is increasing the interdisciplinary between research fields because of a higher specialization in applied/theoretical sciences and combination of bodies of knowledge directed to solve more and more complex scientific problems in nature and society. Interdisciplinary generates new social community of scholars and this is one of the vital drivers of new research fields underlying the evolution of science (Gibbons et al., 1994;Guimera et al., 2005;Klein, 1996;Sun et al., 2013;Wagner, 2008). Sun et al. (2013) state that some theories consider the social interaction among groups of scientists “as the driving force behind the evolution of disciplines” (cf., Wuchty et al., 2007). As a matter of fact, the interaction between scholars of different disciplines might be one of the factors of social construction of science to support the evolution of new research fields. In fact, Small (1999, p. 812) argues that: “crossover fields are frequently encountered, and the location of a field can occasi
This content is AI-processed based on open access ArXiv data.
