Erin Leahey

Novelty and impact are key characteristics of the scientific enterprise. Classic theories of scientific change distinguish among different types of novelty and emphasize how a new idea interacts with previous work and influences future flows of knowledge. However, even recently developed measures of novelty remain unidimensional, and continued reliance on citation counts captures only the amount, but not the nature, of scientific impact. To better align theoretical and empirical work, we attend to different types of novelty (new results, new theories, and new methods) and whether a scientific offering has a consolidating form of influence (bringing renewed attention to foundational ideas) or a disruptive one (prompting subsequent scholars to overlook them). By integrating data from the Web of Science (to measure the nature of influence) with essays written by authors of Citation Classics (to measure novelty type), and by joining computational text analysis with statistical analyses, we demonstrate clear and robust patterns between type of novelty and the nature of scientific influence. As expected, new methods tend to be more disruptive, whereas new theories tend to be less disruptive. Surprisingly, new results do not have a robust effect on the nature of scientific influence.

Typically, vaccination is perceived as self-interested act, but it is also a community-oriented action that benefits other members in society, as high vaccine uptake reduces disease transmission. Drawing on the notion of deservingness, the authors ran an online experiment ( n = 516) to assess whose interests motivate people from across the political spectrum to engage in a community-oriented action: the intention to receive a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Results show that liberals and conservatives resonate with self-oriented and community-oriented message frames differently. When a community-oriented message focuses on hard-hit groups such as racial minorities, this increases vaccine intent among liberals but decreases vaccine intent among conservatives. A message focusing on community in a generic sense is the only message frame that increases vaccine intent among moderates and the message that induces the least resistance among conservatives. The findings suggest that members of racial and ethnic minority groups are still excluded from boundaries of moral concern.

Synthesis centers are a recently-developed form of scientific organization that catalyzes and supports a form of interdisciplinary research that integrates diverse theories, methods and data across spatial or temporal scales, scientific phenomena, and forms of expertise to increase the generality, parsimony, applicability, or empirical soundness of scientific explanations. Research has shown the synthesis working group to be a distinctive form of scientific collaboration that reliably produces consequential, high-impact publications, but no one has asked: do synthesis working groups produce publications that are substantially more diverse than those produced outside of synthesis centers, and if so, how and with what effects? We have investigated these questions through a novel textual analysis. We found that if diversity is measured solely by mean difference in the Rao-Stirling (aggregate) measure of diversity, then the answer is no. But synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but significantly lower disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. Synthesis center influence is mediated by the greater size of synthesis center collaborations (numbers of authors, distinct institutions, and references) but even when taking size into account, there is a persistent direct effect: synthesis center papers have significantly greater variety and balance, but less disparity, than papers in the reference corpus. We conclude 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.

This paper synthesizes findings from two studies the author conducted that examine how engagement in interdisciplinary research (IDR) influences scholars’ careers. Results from these two studies, one large-scale and quantitative and the other small-scale and qualitative, provide a much needed empirical assessment of IDR’s effects on individual careers. In essence, they provide a nice antidote (and some caution) to the rhetoric and enthusiasm surrounding IDR. My co-authors of these studies and I find that engaging in interdisciplinary research increases a scholar’s visibility in terms of citations, but also presents challenges, including reduced productivity, cognitive challenges, lack of support, extra time and commitment, and framing of one’s work. This paper concludes by discussing the policy implications of this research.

This article reviews trends in the practice and study of research collaboration, focusing on journal publications in academic science. I briefly describe the different styles and types of collaboration and then focus on the drivers of the trend toward increased collaboration and on its consequences for both individual researchers and science more generally. Scholarship on collaboration seems partial to delineating its benefits; this review highlights the increasing body of research that focuses instead on the possible costs of collaboration. The synthesis reveals several topics that are ripe for investigation, including the impact of collaboration on the contributing authors and their work, the use of multiple methods and measures, and research integrity. I applaud a few recent efforts to overcome the perennial file-drawer problem by gaining access to collaborations that do not result in publication and thus are typically removed from public review and the research analyst's eye.

Is domain-spanning beneficial? Can it promote innovation? Classic research on recombinant innovation suggests that domain-spanning fosters the accumulation of diverse information and can thus be a springboard for fresh ideas—most of which emanate from the merger of extant ideas from distinct realms. But domain-spanning is also challenging to produce and to evaluate. Here, the domains of interest are subfields. We focus on subfield spanning in sociology, a topically diverse field whose distinct subfields are still reasonably permeable. To do so, we introduce two measures of subfield integration, one of which uniquely accounts for the novelty of subfield combinations. We find (within the limits of observable data) the costs to be minimal but the rewards substantial: Once published, sociology articles that integrate subfields (especially rarely spanned subfields) garner more citations. We discuss how these results illuminate trends in the discipline of sociology and inform theories of recombinant innovation.