characteristics of research based knowledge

Research: Definition, Characteristics, Goals, Approaches

Research is an original and systematic investigation undertaken to increase existing knowledge and understanding of the unknown to establish facts and principles.

Let’s understand research:

What is Research?

Research is a voyage of discovery of new knowledge. It comprises creating ideas and generating new knowledge that leads to new and improved insights and the development of new materials, devices, products, and processes.

It should have the potential to produce sufficiently relevant results to increase and synthesize existing knowledge or correct and integrate previous knowledge.

Good reflective research produces theories and hypotheses and benefits any intellectual attempt to analyze facts and phenomena.

Where did the word Research Come from?

The word ‘research’ perhaps originates from the old French word “recerchier” which meant to ‘ search again.’ It implicitly assumes that the earlier search was not exhaustive and complete; hence, a repeated search is called for.

In practice, ‘research’ refers to a scientific process of generating an unexplored horizon of knowledge, aiming at discovering or establishing facts, solving a problem, and reaching a decision. Keeping the above points in view, we arrive at the following definition of research:

Research Definition

Research is a scientific approach to answering a research question, solving a research problem, or generating new knowledge through a systematic and orderly collection, organization, and analysis of data to make research findings useful in decision-making.

When do we call research scientific? Any research endeavor is said to be scientific if

• It is based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning;
• It consists of systematic observations, measurement, and experimentation;
• It relies on the application of scientific methods and harnessing of curiosity;
• It provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of nature;
• It makes practical applications possible, and
• It ensures adequate analysis of data employing rigorous statistical techniques.

The chief characteristic that distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

Scientific research has multidimensional functions, characteristics, and objectives.

Keeping these issues in view, we assert that research in any field or discipline:

• Attempts to solve a research problem;
• Involves gathering new data from primary or first-hand sources or using existing data for a new purpose;
• is based upon observable experiences or empirical evidence;
• Demands accurate observation and description;
• Employs carefully designed procedures and rigorous analysis;
• attempts to find an objective, unbiased solution to the problem and takes great pains to validate the methods employed;
• is a deliberate and unhurried activity that is directional but often refines the problem or questions as the research progresses.

Characteristics of Research

Keeping this in mind that research in any field of inquiry is undertaken to provide information to support decision-making in its respective area, we summarize some desirable characteristics of research:

• The research should focus on priority problems.
• The research should be systematic. It emphasizes that a researcher should employ a structured procedure.
• The research should be logical. Without manipulating ideas logically, the scientific researcher cannot make much progress in any investigation.
• The research should be reductive. This means that one researcher’s findings should be made available to other researchers to prevent them from repeating the same research.
• The research should be replicable. This asserts that there should be scope to confirm previous research findings in a new environment and different settings with a new group of subjects or at a different point in time.
• The research should be generative. This is one of the valuable characteristics of research because answering one question leads to generating many other new questions.
• The research should be action-oriented. In other words, it should be aimed at solving to implement its findings.
• The research should follow an integrated multidisciplinary approach, i.e., research approaches from more than one discipline are needed.
• The research should be participatory, involving all parties concerned (from policymakers down to community members) at all stages of the study.
• The research must be relatively simple, timely, and time-bound, employing a comparatively simple design.
• The research must be as much cost-effective as possible.
• The research results should be presented in formats most useful for administrators, decision-makers, business managers, or community members.

3 Basic Operations of Research

Scientific research in any field of inquiry involves three basic operations:

• Data collection;
• Data analysis;
• Report writing .

• Data collection refers to observing, measuring, and recording data or information.
• Data analysis, on the other hand, refers to arranging and organizing the collected data so that we may be able to find out what their significance is and generalize about them.
• Report writing is the ultimate step of the study . Its purpose is to convey the information contained in it to the readers or audience.

If you note down, for example, the reading habit of newspapers of a group of residents in a community, that would be your data collection.

If you then divide these residents into three categories, ‘regular,’ ‘occasional,’ and ‘never,’ you have performed a simple data analysis. Your findings may now be presented in a report form.

A reader of your report knows what percentage of the community people never read any newspaper and so on.

Here are some examples that demonstrate what research is:

• A farmer is planting two varieties of jute side by side to compare yields;
• A sociologist examines the causes and consequences of divorce;
• An economist is looking at the interdependence of inflation and foreign direct investment;
• A physician is experimenting with the effects of multiple uses of disposable insulin syringes in a hospital;
• A business enterprise is examining the effects of advertisement of their products on the volume of sales;
• An economist is doing a cost-benefit analysis of reducing the sales tax on essential commodities;
• The Bangladesh Bank is closely observing and monitoring the performance of nationalized and private banks;
• Based on some prior information, Bank Management plans to open new counters for female customers.
• Supermarket Management is assessing the satisfaction level of the customers with their products.

The above examples are all researching whether the instrument is an electronic microscope, hospital records, a microcomputer, a questionnaire, or a checklist.

Research Motivation – What makes one motivated to do research?

A person may be motivated to undertake research activities because

• He might have genuine interest and curiosity in the existing body of knowledge and understanding of the problem;
• He is looking for answers to questions that have remained unanswered so far and trying to unfold the truth;
• The existing tools and techniques are accessible to him, and others may need modification and change to suit the current needs.

One might research ensuring.

• Better livelihood;
• Better career development;
• Higher position, prestige, and dignity in society;
• Academic achievement leading to higher degrees;
• Self-gratification.

At the individual level, the results of the research are used by many:

• A villager is drinking water from an arsenic-free tube well;
• A rural woman is giving more green vegetables to her child than before;
• A cigarette smoker is actively considering quitting smoking;
• An old man is jogging for cardiovascular fitness;
• A sociologist is using newly suggested tools and techniques in poverty measurement.

The above activities are all outcomes of the research.

All involved in the above processes will benefit from the research results. There is hardly any action in everyday life that does not depend upon previous research.

Research in any field of inquiry provides us with the knowledge and skills to solve problems and meet the challenges of a fast-paced decision-making environment.

9 Qualities of Research

Good research generates dependable data. It is conducted by professionals and can be used reliably for decision-making. It is thus of crucial importance that research should be made acceptable to the audience for which research should possess some desirable qualities in terms of.

9 qualities of research are;

Purpose clearly defined

Research process detailed, research design planner, ethical issues considered, limitations revealed, adequate analysis ensured, findings unambiguously presented, conclusions and recommendations justified..

We enumerate below a few qualities that good research should possess.

Good research must have its purposes clearly and unambiguously defined.

The problem involved or the decision to be made should be sharply delineated as clearly as possible to demonstrate the credibility of the research.

The research procedures should be described in sufficient detail to permit other researchers to repeat the research later.

Failure to do so makes it difficult or impossible to estimate the validity and reliability of the results. This weakens the confidence of the readers.

Any recommendations from such research justifiably get little attention from the policymakers and implementation.

The procedural design of the research should be carefully planned to yield results that are as objective as possible.

In doing so, care must be taken so that the sample’s representativeness is ensured, relevant literature has been thoroughly searched, experimental controls, whenever necessary, have been followed, and the personal bias in selecting and recording data has been minimized.

A research design should always safeguard against causing mental and physical harm not only to the participants but also those who belong to their organizations.

Careful consideration must also be given to research situations when there is a possibility for exploitation, invasion of privacy, and loss of dignity of all those involved in the study.

The researcher should report with complete honesty and frankness any flaws in procedural design; he followed and provided estimates of their effects on the findings.

This enhances the readers’ confidence and makes the report acceptable to the audience. One can legitimately question the value of research where no limitations are reported.

Adequate analysis reveals the significance of the data and helps the researcher to check the reliability and validity of his estimates.

Data should, therefore, be analyzed with proper statistical rigor to assist the researcher in reaching firm conclusions.

When statistical methods have been employed, the probability of error should be estimated, and criteria of statistical significance applied.

The presentation of the results should be comprehensive, easily understood by the readers, and organized so that the readers can readily locate the critical and central findings.

Proper research always specifies the conditions under which the research conclusions seem valid.

Therefore, it is important that any conclusions drawn and recommendations made should be solely based on the findings of the study.

No inferences or generalizations should be made beyond the data. If this were not followed, the objectivity of the research would tend to decrease, resulting in confidence in the findings.

The researcher’s experiences were reflected.

The research report should contain information about the qualifications of the researchers .

If the researcher is experienced, has a good reputation in research, and is a person of integrity, his report is likely to be highly valued. The policymakers feel confident in implementing the recommendations made in such reports.

4 Goals of Research

The primary goal or purpose of research in any field of inquiry; is to add to what is known about the phenomenon under investigation by applying scientific methods. Though each research has its own specific goals, we may enumerate the following 4 broad goals of scientific research:

Exploration and Explorative Research

Description and descriptive research, causal explanation and causal research, prediction and predictive research.

The link between the 4 goals of research and the questions raised in reaching these goals.

Let’s try to understand the 4 goals of the research.

Exploration is finding out about some previously unexamined phenomenon. In other words, an explorative study structures and identifies new problems.

The explorative study aims to gain familiarity with a phenomenon or gain new insights into it.

Exploration is particularly useful when researchers lack a clear idea of the problems they meet during their study.

Through exploration, researchers attempt to

• Develop concepts more clearly;
• Establish priorities among several alternatives;
• Develop operational definitions of variables;
• Formulate research hypotheses and sharpen research objectives;
• Improve the methodology and modify (if needed) the research design .

Exploration is achieved through what we call exploratory research.

The end of an explorative study comes when the researchers are convinced that they have established the major dimensions of the research task.

Many research activities consist of gathering information on some topic of interest. The description refers to these data-based information-gathering activities. Descriptive studies portray precisely the characteristics of a particular individual, situation, or group.

Here, we attempt to describe situations and events through studies, which we refer to as descriptive research.

Such research is undertaken when much is known about the problem under investigation.

Descriptive studies try to discover answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and sometimes how.

Such research studies may involve the collection of data and the creation of distribution of the number of times the researcher observes a single event or characteristic, known as a research variable.

A descriptive study may also involve the interaction of two or more variables and attempts to observe if there is any relationship between the variables under investigation .

Research that examines such a relationship is sometimes called a correlational study. It is correlational because it attempts to relate (i.e., co-relate) two or more variables.

A descriptive study may be feasible to answer the questions of the following types:

• What are the characteristics of the people who are involved in city crime? Are they young? Middle-aged? Poor? Muslim? Educated?
• Who are the potential buyers of the new product? Men or women? Urban people or rural people?
• Are rural women more likely to marry earlier than their urban counterparts?
• Does previous experience help an employee to get a higher initial salary?

Although the data description in descriptive research is factual, accurate, and systematic, the research cannot describe what caused a situation.

Thus, descriptive research cannot be used to create a causal relationship where one variable affects another.

In other words, descriptive research can be said to have a low requirement for internal validity. In sum, descriptive research deals with everything that can be counted and studied.

But there are always restrictions on that. All research must impact the lives of the people around us.

For example, finding the most frequent disease that affects the people of a community falls under descriptive research.

But the research readers will have the hunch to know why this has happened and what to do to prevent that disease so that more people will live healthy lives.

It dictates that we need a causal explanation of the situation under reference and a causal study vis-a-vis causal research .

Explanation reveals why and how something happens.

An explanatory study goes beyond description and attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. It explains the reason for the phenomenon that the descriptive study observed.

Thus, if a researcher finds that communities with larger family sizes have higher child deaths or that smoking correlates with lung cancer, he is performing a descriptive study.

If he explains why it is so and tries to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, he is performing explanatory or causal research . The researcher uses theories or at-least hypotheses to account for the factors that caused a certain phenomenon.

Look at the following examples that fit causal studies:

• Why are people involved in crime? Can we explain this as a consequence of the present job market crisis or lack of parental care?
• Will the buyers be motivated to purchase the new product in a new container ? Can an attractive advertisement motivate them to buy a new product?
• Why has the share market shown the steepest-ever fall in stock prices? Is it because of the IMF’s warnings and prescriptions on the commercial banks’ exposure to the stock market or because of an abundant increase in the supply of new shares?

Prediction seeks to answer when and in what situations will occur if we can provide a plausible explanation for the event in question.

However, the precise nature of the relationship between explanation and prediction has been a subject of debate.

One view is that explanation and prediction are the same phenomena, except that prediction precedes the event while the explanation takes place after the event has occurred.

Another view is that explanation and prediction are fundamentally different processes.

We need not be concerned with this debate here but can simply state that in addition to being able to explain an event after it has occurred, we would also be able to predict when it will occur.

Research Approaches

There are two main approaches to doing research.

The first is the basic approach, which mostly pertains to academic research. Many people view this as pure research or fundamental research.

The research implemented through the second approach is variously known as applied research, action research, operations research, or contract research.

Also, the third category of research, evaluative research, is important in many applications. All these approaches have different purposes influencing the nature of the respective research.

Lastly, precautions in research are required for thorough research.

So, 4 research approaches are;

• Basic Research .
• Applied Research .
• Evaluative Research .
• Precautions in Research.

Areas of Research

The most important fields or areas of research, among others, are;

• Social Research .
• Health Research .
• Population Research .
• Business Research .
• Marketing Research .
• Agricultural Research .
• Biomedical Research.
• Clinical Research .
• Outcomes Research.
• Internet Research.
• Archival Research.
• Empirical Research.
• Legal Research .
• Education Research .
• Engineering Research .
• Historical Research.

Check out our article describing all 16 areas of research .

Precautions in Research

Whether a researcher is doing applied or basic research or research of any other form, he or she must take necessary precautions to ensure that the research he or she is doing is relevant, timely, efficient, accurate, and ethical .

The research is considered relevant if it anticipates the kinds of information that decision-makers, scientists, or policymakers will require.

Timely research is completed in time to influence decisions.

• Research is efficient when it is of the best quality for the minimum expenditure and the study is appropriate to the research context.
• Research is considered accurate or valid when the interpretation can account for both consistencies and inconsistencies in the data.
• Research is ethical when it can promote trust, exercise care, ensure standards, and protect the rights of the participants in the research process.

What is the definition of research?

What are the characteristics of good research, what are the three basic operations involved in scientific research, what are the four broad goals of scientific research, what distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge, what is the origin of the word ‘research’, how is “research methodology” defined, how does research methodology ensure the appropriateness of a research method.

After discussing the research definition and knowing the characteristics, goals, and approaches, it’s time to delve into the research fundamentals. For a comprehensive understanding, refer to our detailed research and methodology concepts guide .

Research should be relevant, timely, efficient, accurate, and ethical. It should anticipate the information required by decision-makers, be completed in time to influence decisions, be of the best quality for the minimum expenditure, and protect the rights of participants in the research process.

The two main approaches to research are the basic approach, often viewed as pure or fundamental research, and the applied approach, which includes action research, operations research, and contract research.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Characteristics of research

• Empirical - based on observations and experimentation
• Systematic - follows orderly and sequential procedure.
• Controlled - all variables except those that are tested/experimented upon are kept constant.
• Employs hypothesis - guides the investigation process
• Analytical - There is critical analysis of all data used so that there is no error in their interpretation
• Objective, Unbiased, & Logical - all findings are logically based on empirical.
• Employs quantitative or statistical methods - data are transformed into numerical measures and are treated statistically.

See Also [ edit | edit source ]

• Thinking Scientifically
• Writing discipline specific research papers
• Wikipedia: Research
• Wikibooks: Research Methods

Bibliography [ edit | edit source ]

• Feigenbaum, Edward A.; McCorduck, Pamela (1983). The fifth generation: Artificial intelligence and Japan's computer challenge to the world . ISBN  978-0-201-11519-2 .  
• Kendal, Simon; Creen, Malcolm (2006-10-04). An Introduction to Knowledge Engineering . ISBN  978-1-84628-475-5 .  
• Russell, Stuart Jonathan; Norvig, Peter (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach . ISBN  0-13-103805-2 .  

Navigation menu

10 Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge/Research

• Post author: Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka ACMC
• Post published: October 10, 2021
• Post category: Scholarly Articles

Major Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge : There are different types of researches and research methods that may be considered by a researcher. But no doubt, the results of a scientific research are more readily acceptable by the majority of the public. The major reason why this is the case is because of the features which scientific research works carry. The major characteristics of scientific knowledge includes the following: Empirical, Objective, Accuracy, Systematic, Ethical consideration, Reliable, Predictable, Replicable, Controlled and have a definite objective.

Recommended: Advantages and Disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative research

10 Major Characteristics of Scientific Knowledge/ Research

1. Empirical: A cardinal feature of a scientific research work is that it is empirical. Simply put, this means that it can be verifiable. Thus for a work to qualify as a scientific work, persons should be able to verify the truth or otherwise of the said research work. Thus with a knowledge of the materials and tools used by the original research and an understanding of the research procedure, any third party with the requisite knowledge should be able to verify the said research work.

It is only when such research work is verified and the results are seen to confirm with the original objectives and statements of the researcher that it may be correctly termed as a scientific research. Where a work cannot be verified with credible facts, evidence or materials, it cannot be said to qualify as a scientific research.

2. Objectivity: All scientific knowledge are objective as opposed to being subjective. This simply means that they are considered from the general perspective as opposed to being considered from the personal perspective. The purpose of a research work is usually to solve a problem or give explanation to a problem.

This makes it very important for such work to be conducted from an objective point of view. Also, a work will get easily verified and serve the general public more easily when it is conducted objectively. A research work bearing and carrying the personal positions, feelings, untested ideas and idiosyncrasies of a researcher cannot thus qualify as a scientific research.

Also see: Qualities of a great researcher

3. Ethical : Science does not exist on an island of it’s own, but exists within the framework of the human environment. Thus true and acceptable science must in some ways, put into consideration the values, morals, and ethical considerations of the society.

Any research work that gravely objects to key and fundamental tenets and beliefs of the society is greatly objected to and as such loses general acceptance. For instance, the sacred nature of life is a core value in the society, thus a research work that threatens this core principle will be stiffly objected to and would ordinarily lose its scientific flavour.

4. Systematic Exploration: Scientific research require verification and the only way a scientific research can be verified is where there is a systematic exploration which can be repeated. This means that a key feature of a scientific research is that it follows some particular steps and procedures and if these steps and procedures are repeated by any other person within a specific condition, the same result can be attained.

This is why scientific research normally involves well laid out steps and detailed introductory explanation on the conditions within which the research has been carried out. This systematic exploration mechanisms laid down allows for a detailed and accurate repetition of the research work and the materialization of a similar result.

Also see: Ways of promoting popular participation in politics

5. Reliable : It is a key feature of a research work qualified as scientific to be reliable. Reliable in this sense means that any other person may replicate similar results by following the systematic procedures laid down. If a research work cannot be relied upon by others and a similar result replicated, then it cannot be qualified as a scientific research.

This is why there is a need for a systematic exploration in scientific research works so that these laid down steps can be easily followed and a similar result attained. It is only when this is present that such research work my be considered as being reliable by the majority of the public and also readily accepted.

6. Accuracy : All scientific research works must have this all-important feature of being accurate. A research work usually lays down the goals at the beginning stage and the results aimed to achieve at the end. This end result must be attained a 100 percent. The precise nature of science increases the reliability of scientific research works.

Science does not leave room for speculations and doubts as these may prove to be really costly in the long run. Any research work that does not show precision and exactitude cannot does qualify to be considered a scientific research work.

Also see: Best science courses to study in the university

7. Predictability: A good scientific research work should be predictable. This simply means that at the very early stages of the research work, a researcher should be able to predict the outcome. Due to the precise nature of science and scientific works, they are very easily predictable. Science does not allow for huge uncertainties and unknown variables. All unknown variables and uncertainties must therefore be eliminated so as to allow for a more predictable and reliable result.

8. Replicated : A scientific work will be of little to no relevance of it cannot be replicated following a systematic exploration/ procedure laid down by the originator. The possibility of replicating a particular research work and attaining a result which is exact with the original research is what makes for the general acceptability of scientific works. The fact that a research conducted in a lab in Europe can be replicated in Africa and a similar result attained qualifies such research as being scientific. If after the due procedures and steps are followed, a similar result cannot be attained, then the research work cannot be termed scientific.

Recommended: Advantages and Disadvantages of social media to students

9. Controlled : All scientific research works are usually examined under a controlled environment. This allows for specific variables to be known as the knowledge of these variables allow for ease of repeating the said research work. All of the controlled variables must be made known so that a person who wishes to carry on the research can do so and attain a very similar result.

10. Objective/ Goal : Lastly, all scientific research works have a specific objective or goal as the end result in the mind of the researcher. Research are not just carried out without any objective or goal in mind. A research work is usually carried out with the aim of solving some world problems or making some new innovations. Thus, all scientific research must have a goal as the end product. This goal serves as the driving force for such research work.

Recommended: How to become a successful lawyer

This is a brief analysis of the major characteristics of a scientific research work. Any research that does not meet with these requirements cannot thus be rightly considered scientific.

Edeh Samuel Chukwuemeka, ACMC, is a lawyer and a certified mediator/conciliator in Nigeria. He is also a developer with knowledge in various programming languages. Samuel is determined to leverage his skills in technology, SEO, and legal practice to revolutionize the legal profession worldwide by creating web and mobile applications that simplify legal research. Sam is also passionate about educating and providing valuable information to people.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Prev Med Public Health
• v.56(1); 2023 Jan

Qualitative Research in Healthcare: Necessity and Characteristics

1 Department of Preventive Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Korea

2 Ulsan Metropolitan City Public Health Policy’s Institute, Ulsan, Korea

3 Department of Nursing, Chung-Ang University, Seoul, Korea

Eun Young Choi

4 College of Nursing, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, Korea

Seung Gyeong Jang

5 Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Quantitative and qualitative research explore various social phenomena using different methods. However, there has been a tendency to treat quantitative studies using complicated statistical techniques as more scientific and superior, whereas relatively few qualitative studies have been conducted in the medical and healthcare fields. This review aimed to provide a proper understanding of qualitative research. This review examined the characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research to help researchers select the appropriate qualitative research methodology. Qualitative research is applicable in following cases: (1) when an exploratory approach is required on a topic that is not well known, (2) when something cannot be explained fully with quantitative research, (3) when it is necessary to newly present a specific view on a research topic that is difficult to explain with existing views, (4) when it is inappropriate to present the rationale or theoretical proposition for designing hypotheses, as in quantitative research, and (5) when conducting research that requires detailed descriptive writing with literary expressions. Qualitative research is conducted in the following order: (1) selection of a research topic and question, (2) selection of a theoretical framework and methods, (3) literature analysis, (4) selection of the research participants and data collection methods, (5) data analysis and description of findings, and (6) research validation. This review can contribute to the more active use of qualitative research in healthcare, and the findings are expected to instill a proper understanding of qualitative research in researchers who review qualitative research reports and papers.

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

The definition of research varies among studies and scholars, and it is difficult to devise a single definition. The Oxford English Dictionary defines research as “a careful study of a subject, especially in order to discover new facts or information about it” [ 1 ], while Webster’s Dictionary defines research as “studious inquiry or examination - especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws” [ 2 ]. Moreover, research is broadly defined as the process of solving unsolved problems to broaden human knowledge [ 3 ]. A more thorough understanding of research can be gained by examining its types and reasons for conducting it.

The reasons for conducting research may include practical goals, such as degree attainment, job promotion, and financial profit. Research may be based on one’s own academic curiosity or aspiration or guided by professors or other supervisors. Academic research aims can be further divided into the following: (1) accurately describing an object or phenomenon, (2) identifying general laws and establishing well-designed theories for understanding and explaining a certain phenomenon, (3) predicting future events based on laws and theories, and (4) manipulating causes and conditions to induce or prevent a phenomenon [ 3 ].

The appropriate type of research must be selected based on the purpose and topic. Basic research has the primary purpose of expanding the existing knowledge base through new discoveries, while applied research aims to solve a real problem. Descriptive research attempts to factually present comparisons and interpretations of findings based on analyses of the characteristics, progression, or relationships of a certain phenomenon by manipulating the variables or controlling the conditions. Experimental or analytical research attempts to identify causal relationships between variables through experiments by arbitrarily manipulating the variables or controlling the conditions [ 3 ]. In addition, research can be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the data collection and analytical methods. Quantitative research relies on statistical analyses of quantitative data obtained primarily through investigation and experiment, while qualitative research uses specific methodologies to analyze qualitative data obtained through participant observations and in-depth interviews. However, as these types of research are not polar opposites and the criteria for classifying research types are unclear, there is some degree of methodological overlap.

What is more important than differentiating types of research is identifying the appropriate type of research to gain a better understanding of specific questions and improve problems encountered by people in life. An appropriate research type or methodology is essential to apply findings reliably. However, quantitative research based on the philosophical ideas of empiricism and positivism has been the mainstay in the field of healthcare, with academic advancement achieved through the application of various statistical techniques to quantitative data [ 4 ]. In particular, there has been a tendency to treat complicated statistical techniques as more scientific and superior, with few qualitative studies in not only clinical medicine, but also primary care and social medicine, which are relatively strongly influenced by the social sciences [ 5 , 6 ].

Quantitative and qualitative research use different ways of exploring various social phenomena. Both research methodologies can be applied individually or in combination based on the research topic, with mixed quantitative and qualitative research methodologies becoming more widespread in recent years [ 7 ]. Applying these 2 methods through a virtuous cycle of integration from a complementary perspective can provide a more accurate understanding of human phenomena and solutions to real-world problems.

This review aimed to provide a proper understanding of qualitative research to assist researchers in selecting the appropriate research methodology. Specifically, this review examined the characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research, the applicability of qualitative research, and the data sources collected and analyzed in qualitative research.

COMPARISON OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

A clearer understanding of qualitative research can be obtained by comparing qualitative and quantitative research, with which people are generally familiar [ 8 , 9 ]. Quantitative research focuses on testing the validity of hypotheses established by the researcher to identify the causal relationships of a specific phenomenon and discovering laws to predict that phenomenon ( Table 1 ). Therefore, it emphasizes controlling the influence of variables that may interfere with the process of identifying causality and laws. In contrast, qualitative research aims to discover and explore new hypotheses or theories based on a deep understanding of the meaning of a specific phenomenon. As such, qualitative research attempts to accept various environmental factors naturally. In quantitative research, importance is placed on the researcher acting as an outsider to take an objective view by keeping a certain distance from the research subject. In contrast, qualitative research encourages looking inside the research subjects to understand them deeply, while also emphasizing the need for researchers to take an intersubjective view that is formed and shared based on a mutual understanding with the research subjects.

Comparison of methodological characteristics between quantitative research and qualitative research

The data used in quantitative research can be expressed as numerical values, and data accumulated through questionnaire surveys and tests are often used in analyses. In contrast, qualitative research uses narrative data with words and images collected through participant observations, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions used in the analyses. Quantitative research data are measured repeatedly to enhance their reliability, while the analyses of such data focus on superficial aspects of the phenomenon of interest. Qualitative research instead focuses on obtaining deep and rich data and aims to identify the specific contents, dynamics, and processes inherent within the phenomenon and situation.

There are clear distinctions in the advantages, disadvantages, and goals of quantitative and qualitative research. On one hand, quantitative research has the advantages of reliability and generalizability of the findings, and advances in data collection and analysis methods have increased reliability and generalizability. However, quantitative research presents difficulties with an in-depth analysis of dynamic phenomena that cannot be expressed by numbers alone and interpreting the results analyzed in terms numbers. On the other hand, qualitative research has the advantage of validity, which refers to how accurately or appropriately a phenomenon was measured. However, qualitative research also has the disadvantage of weak generalizability, which determines whether an observed phenomenon applies to other cases.

APPLICATIONS OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND ITS USEFULNESS IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD

Qualitative research cannot be the solution to all problems. A specific methodology should not be applied to all situations. Therefore, researchers need to have a good understanding of the applicability of qualitative research. Generally, qualitative research is applicable in following cases: (1) when an exploratory approach is required on a topic that is not well known, (2) when something cannot be explained fully with quantitative research, (3) when it is necessary to newly present a specific view on a research topic that is difficult to explain with existing views, (4) when it is inappropriate to present the rationale or theoretical proposition for designing hypotheses, as in quantitative research, and (5) when conducting research that requires detailed descriptive writing with literary expressions [ 7 ]. In particular, qualitative research is useful for opening new fields of research, such as important topics that have not been previously examined or whose significance has not been recognized. Moreover, qualitative research is advantageous for examining known topics from a fresh perspective.

In the healthcare field, qualitative research is conducted on various topics considering its characteristics and strengths. Quantitative research, which focuses on hypothesis validation, such as the superiority of specific treatments or the effectiveness of specific policies, and the generalization of findings, has been the primary research methodology in the field of healthcare. Qualitative research has been mostly applied for studies such as subjective disease experiences and attitudes with respect to health-related patient quality of life [ 10 - 12 ], experiences and perceptions regarding the use of healthcare services [ 13 - 15 ], and assessments of the quality of care [ 16 , 17 ]. Moreover, qualitative research has focused on vulnerable populations, such as the elderly, children, disabled [ 18 - 20 ], minorities, and socially underprivileged with specific experiences [ 21 , 22 ].

For instance, patient safety is considered a pillar of quality of care, which is an aspect of healthcare with increasing international interest. The ultimate goal of patient safety research should be the improvement of patient safety, for which it is necessary to identify the root causes of potential errors and adverse events. In such cases, qualitative rather than quantitative research is often required. It is also important to identify whether there are any barriers when applying measures for enhancing patient safety to clinical practice. To identify such barriers, qualitative research is necessary to observe healthcare workers directly applying the solutions step-by-step during each process, determine whether there are difficulties in applying the solutions to relevant stakeholders, and ask how to improve the process if there are difficulties.

Patient safety is a very broad topic, and patient safety issues could be categorized into preventing, recognizing, and responding to patient safety issues based on related metrics [ 23 ]. Responding to issues that pertain to the handling of patient safety incidents that have already occurred has received relatively less interest than other categories of research on this topic, particularly in Korea. Until 2017, almost no research was conducted on the experiences of and difficulties faced by patients and healthcare workers who have been involved in patient safety incidents. This topic can be investigated using qualitative research.

A study in Korea investigated the physical and mental suffering experienced during the process of accepting disability and medical litigation by a patient who became disabled due to medical malpractice [ 21 ]. Another qualitative case study was conducted with participants who lost a family member due to a medical accident and identified psychological suffering due to the incident, as well as secondary psychological suffering during the medical litigation process, which increased the expandability of qualitative research findings [ 24 ]. A quantitative study based on these findings confirmed that people who experienced patient safety incidents had negative responses after the incidents and a high likelihood of sleep or eating disorders, depending on their responses [ 25 ].

A study that applied the grounded theory to examine the second victim phenomenon, referring to healthcare workers who have experienced patient safety incidents, and presented the response stages experienced by second victims demonstrated the strength of qualitative research [ 26 ]. Subsequently, other studies used questionnaire surveys on physicians and nurses to quantify the physical, mental, and work-related difficulties experienced by second victims [ 27 , 28 ]. As such, qualitative research alone can produce significant findings; however, combining quantitative and qualitative research produces a synergistic effect. In the healthcare field, which remains unfamiliar with qualitative research, combining these 2 methodologies could both enhance the validity of research findings and facilitate open discussions with other researchers [ 29 ].

In addition, qualitative research has been used for diverse sub-topics, including the experiences of patients and guardians with respect to various diseases (such as cancer, myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, falls, and dementia), awareness of treatment for diabetes and hypertension, the experiences of physicians and nurses when they come in contact with medical staff, awareness of community health environments, experiences of medical service utilization by the general public in medically vulnerable areas, the general public’s awareness of vaccination policies, the health issues of people with special types of employment (such as delivery and call center workers), and the unmet healthcare needs of persons with vision or hearing impairment.

GENERAL WORKFLOW OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Rather than focusing on deriving objective information, qualitative research aims to discern the quality of a specific phenomenon, obtaining answers to “why” and “how” questions. Qualitative research aims to collect data multi-dimensionally and provide in-depth explanations of the phenomenon being researched. Ultimately, the purpose of qualitative research is set to help researchers gain an understanding of the research topic and reveal the implications of the research findings. Therefore, qualitative research is generally conducted in the following order: (1) selection of a research topic and question, (2) selection of a theoretical framework and methods, (3) literature analysis, (4) selection of the research participants (or participation target) and data collection methods, (5) data analysis and description of findings, and (6) research validation ( Figure 1 ) [ 30 ]. However, unlike quantitative research, in which hypothesis setting and testing take place unidirectionally, a major characteristic of qualitative research is that the process is reversible and research methods can be modified. In other words, the research topic and question could change during the literature analysis process, and theoretical and analytical methods could change during the data collection process.

General workflow of qualitative research.

Selection of a Research Topic and Question

As with any research, the first step in qualitative research is the selection of a research topic and question. Qualitative researchers can select a research topic based on their interests from daily life as a researcher, their interests in issues within the healthcare field, and ideas from the literature, such as academic journals. The research question represents a more specific aspect of the research topic. Before specifically starting to conduct research based on a research topic, the researcher should clarify what is being researched and determine what research would be desirable. When selecting a research topic and question, the research should ask: is the research executable, are the research topic and question worth researching, and is this a research question that a researcher would want to research?

Selection of Theoretical Framework and Methods

A theoretical framework refers to the thoughts or attitudes that a researcher has about the phenomenon being researched. Selecting the theoretical framework first could help qualitative researchers not only in selecting the research purpose and problem, but also in carrying out various processes, including an exploration of the precedent literature and research, selection of the data type to be collected, data analysis, and description of findings. In qualitative research, theoretical frameworks are based on philosophical ideas, which affect the selection of specific qualitative research methods. Representative qualitative research methods include the grounded theory, which is suitable for achieving the goal of developing a theory that can explain the processes involved in the phenomenon being researched; ethnographic study, which is suitable for research topics that attempt to identify and interpret the culture of a specific group; phenomenology, which is suitable for research topics that attempt to identify the nature of research participants’ experiences or the phenomenon being researched; case studies, which aim to gain an in-depth understanding of a case that has unique characteristics and can be differentiated from other cases; action research, which aims to find solutions to problems faced by research participants, with the researchers taking the same position as the participants; and narrative research, which is suitable for research topics that attempt to interpret the entire life or individual experiences contained within the stories of research participants. Other methodologies include photovoice research, consensual qualitative research, and auto-ethnographic research.

Literature Analysis

Literature analysis results can be helpful in specifically selecting the research problem, theoretical framework, and research methods. The literature analysis process compels qualitative researchers to contemplate the new knowledge that their research will add to the academic field. A comprehensive literature analysis is encouraged both in qualitative and quantitative research, and if the prior literature related to the subject to be studied is insufficient, it is sometimes evaluated as having low research potential or research value. Some have claimed that a formal literature review should not be performed before the collection of field data, as it could create bias, thereby interfering with the investigation. However, as the qualitative research process is cyclic rather than unidirectional, the majority believes that a literature review can be performed at any time. Moreover, an ethical review prior to starting the research is a requirement; therefore, the research protocol must be prepared and submitted for review and approval prior to conducting the research. To prepare research protocols, the existing literature must be analyzed at least to a certain degree. Nonetheless, qualitative researchers must keep in mind that their emotions, bias, and expectations may interject themselves during the literature review process and should strive to minimize any bias to ensure the validity of the research.

Selection of the Research Participants and Data Collection Methods

The subjects of qualitative research are not necessarily humans. It is more important to find the research subject(s) from which the most in-depth answers to the research problem can be obtained. However, the subjects in most qualitative studies are humans, as most research question focus on humans. Therefore, it is important to obtain research participants with sufficient knowledge, experience, and attitudes to provide the most appropriate answers to the research question. Quantitative research, which views generalizability as a key research goal, emphasizes the selection of research participants (i.e., the research sample that can represent the study’s population of interest), whereas qualitative research emphasizes finding research participants who can best describe and demonstrate the phenomenon of interest.

In qualitative research, the participant selection method is referred to as purposeful sampling (or purposive sampling), which can be divided into various types. Sampling methods have various advantages, disadvantages, and characteristics. For instance, unique sampling (extreme case sampling) has the advantage of being able to obtain interesting research findings by researching phenomena that have previously received little or no interest, and the disadvantage of deriving research findings that are interesting to only some readers if the research is conducted on an overly unique situation. Maximum variation sampling, also referred to as theoretical sampling, is commonly used in qualitative research based on the grounded theory. Selecting the appropriate participant sampling method that suits the purpose of research is crucial ( Table 2 ).

Sampling methods of selecting research participants in qualitative research

Once the researcher has decided how to select study participants, the data collection methods must be determined. Just as with participant sampling, various data collection methods are available, all of which have various advantages and disadvantages; therefore, the method must be selected based on the research question and circumstances. Unlike quantitative research, which usually uses a single data source and data collection method, the use of multiple data sources and data collection methods is encouraged in qualitative research [ 30 ]. Using a single data source and data collection method could cause data collection to be skewed by researcher bias; therefore, using multiple data sources and data collection methods is ideal. In qualitative research, the following data types are commonly used: (1) interview data obtained through one-on-one in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, (2) observational data from various observation levels, (3) documented data collected from personal or public documents, and (4) image data, such as photographs and videos.

Interview data are the most commonly used data source in qualitative research [ 31 ]. In qualitative research, an interview refers to communication that takes place based on a clear sense of purpose of acquiring certain information, unlike conversations that typically take place in daily life. The level of data acquired through interviews varies significantly depending on the researcher’s personal qualifications and abilities, as well as his or her level of interest and knowledge regarding the research topic. Therefore, interviewers must be trained to go beyond simply identifying the clearly expressed experiences of research participants to exploring their inner experiences and emotions [ 32 ]. Interview data can be classified based on the level of structuralization of the data collection method, sample size, and interview method. The characteristics of each type of interview are given in Table 3 .

Detailed types of interview methods according to the characteristics of in-depth interviews and focus group discussion

Observations, which represent a key data collection method in anthropology, refer to a series of actions taken by the researcher in search of a deep understanding by systematically examining the appearances of research participants that take place in natural situations [ 33 ]. Observations can be categorized as participant and non-participant, insider and outsider, disguised and undisguised, short- and long-term, and structured and unstructured. However, a line cannot be drawn clearly to differentiate these categories, and the degree of each varies along a single spectrum. Therefore, it is necessary for a qualitative researcher to select the appropriate data collection method based on the circumstances and characteristics of the research topic.

Various types of document data can be used in qualitative research. Personal documents include diaries, letters, and autobiographies, while public documents include legal documents, public announcements, and civil documents. Online documents include emails and blog or bulletin board postings, while other documents include graffiti. All these document types may be used as data sources in qualitative research. In addition, image data acquired by the research participant or researcher, such as photographs and videos, serve as useful data sources in qualitative research. Such data sources are relatively objective and easily accessible, while they contain a significant amount of qualitative meaning despite the low acquisition cost. While some data may have been collected for research purposes, other data may not have been originally produced for research. Therefore, the researcher must not distort the original information contained in the data source and must verify the accuracy and authenticity of the data source in advance [ 30 ].

This review examined the characteristics of qualitative research to help researchers select the appropriate qualitative research methodology and identify situations suitable for qualitative research in the healthcare field. In addition, this paper analyzed the selection of the research topic and problem, selection of the theoretical framework and methods, literature analysis, and selection of the research participants and data collection methods. A forthcoming paper will discuss more specific details regarding other qualitative research methodologies, such as data analysis, description of findings, and research validation. This review can contribute to the more active use of qualitative research in the healthcare field, and the findings are expected to instill a proper understanding of qualitative research in researchers who review and judge qualitative research reports and papers.

Ethics Statement

Since this study used secondary data source, we did not seek approval from the institutional review board. We also did not have to ask for the consent of the participants.

Acknowledgments

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflicts of interest associated with the material presented in this paper.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: Pyo J, Lee W, Choi EY, Jang SG, Ock M. Data curation: Pyo J, Ock M. Formal analysis: Pyo J, Ock M. Funding acquisition: None. Validation: Lee W, Choi EY, Jang SG. Writing - original draft: Pyo J, Ock M. Writing - review & editing: Pyo J, Lee W, Choi EY, Jang SG, Ock M.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics of chinese research in library and information science based on knowledge elements.

Aslib Journal of Information Management

ISSN : 2050-3806

Article publication date: 29 May 2023

Issue publication date: 19 June 2023

This study analyzed the interdisciplinary characteristics of Chinese research studies in library and information science (LIS) measured by knowledge elements extracted through the Lexicon-LSTM model.

Design/methodology/approach

Eight research themes were selected for experiment, with a large-scale ( N  = 11,625) dataset of research papers from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database constructed. And it is complemented with multiple corpora. Knowledge elements were extracted through a Lexicon-LSTM model. A subject knowledge graph is constructed to support the searching and classification of knowledge elements. An interdisciplinary-weighted average citation index space was constructed for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions based on knowledge elements.

The empirical research shows that the Lexicon-LSTM model has superiority in the accuracy of extracting knowledge elements. In the field of LIS, the interdisciplinary diversity indicator showed an upward trend from 2011 to 2021, while the disciplinary balance and difference indicators showed a downward trend. The knowledge elements of theory and methodology could be used to detect and measure the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions.

Originality/value

The extraction of knowledge elements facilitates the discovery of semantic information embedded in academic papers. The knowledge elements were proved feasible for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and exploring the changes in the time sequence, which helps for overview the state of the arts and future development trend of the interdisciplinary of research theme in LIS.

• Knowledge element
• Interdisciplinary characteristics
• Weighted average citations
• Lexicon-LSTM
• Knowledge extraction
• Interdisciplinary measurement

Acknowledgements

Grant sponsor: This study was funded by the Major Project of Key University-Based National Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, China, Grant number 22JJD870004; Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province, China, Grant number 2020A1010020032.

Zeng, J. , Cao, S. , Chen, Y. , Pan, P. and Cai, Y. (2023), "Measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics of Chinese research in library and information science based on knowledge elements", Aslib Journal of Information Management , Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 589-617. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2022-0130

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

An ethnography of construction and characteristics of curriculum for inheritance of intangible cultural heritage martial arts in universities provisionally accepted.

• 1 Chengdu Sport University, China
• 2 Xishan Foreign Experimental School, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Inheriting excellent traditional Chinese culture is a prerequisite for ensuring the continuity of the cultural genes of the Chinese nation. However, with the historical mission of shaping the national character of the descendants of the Chinese nation, intangible cultural heritage martial arts face the problem of unclear curriculum content construction mechanism in university inheritance, and make it difficult for intangible cultural heritage martial arts to shoulder the responsibility of cultural inheritance in the era.Method:Educational ethnography as a research method is conducive to in-depth exploration of the mechanism of curriculum content construction in the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage martial arts in universities.Results:Research suggests that the construction of curriculum content for the inheritance of intangible cultural heritage martial arts in universities relies on the form of cooperation between universities and inheritors, and form three models of curriculum content construction: off campus, on campus, and on campus cooperation. The construction of curriculum content for off campus inheritors belongs to the "attachment style" model, which is based on the actual needs of the inheritors and the selection of boxing types; The construction of curriculum content for inheritors on campus belongs to the "reshaping" model, which is the inheritor's "simplification and reorganization" based on traditional routines and subjective and objective conditions of inheritance; The construction of course content in school local cooperation belongs to the "integrated" model, which is the re integration of course content by universities based on their own development characteristics and the characteristics of various martial arts.Conclusion:In inheritance of intangible cultural heritage martial arts in universities, emphasis is placed on local knowledge, core skills, cultural traditions, and other characteristics, highlighting the excellence of its cultural inheritance. In the future, the focus of intangible cultural heritage martial arts university inheritance is to cultivate innovative talents who are familiar with both traditional and modern martial arts.

Keywords: Curriculum construction, Intangible cultural heritage martial arts, martial arts education, Traditional culture, Local knowledge

Received: 03 Mar 2024; Accepted: 23 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Yuanlong and Nana. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. CHENG Yuanlong, Chengdu Sport University, Chengdu, China

People also looked at

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Diverse Cultures and Shared Experiences Shape Asian American Identities

About six-in-ten feel connected to other asians in the u.s., table of contents.

• The making of Asian American identity and knowledge of Asian history in the U.S.
• Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans' identities and their life in the U.S.
• Asians in the U.S. share similar views among themselves and with the U.S. public on what it means to be American
• How Asians in the U.S. describe their identity
• Asian adults and the general public agree: U.S. Asians have many different cultures
• Whom do U.S. Asians consider Asian?
• A majority of Asian adults say others would describe them as Asian when walking past them on the street
• For many Asian adults, where they were born shapes friendships formed in the U.S.
• Most Asian adults are comfortable with intermarriage
• Some Asians say they have hidden their heritage
• Connections with other Asian Americans, politics and political parties
• Need for a national leader advancing the concerns of Asian Americans
• Asian American registered voters and political party
• About one-quarter of Asian adults say they are informed about U.S. Asian history
• What being ‘truly American’ means to U.S. Asians
• Fewer than half of U.S. Asians consider themselves typical Americans
• What do Asian Americans view as important for the American dream?
• Most Asian adults say the American dream is within reach, but about a quarter say they will never achieve it
• Acknowledgments
• Sample design
• Data collection
• Weighting and variance estimation
• Largest origin groups
• Educational attainment
• Immigration status
• Length of time living in the U.S. among immigrants
• Citizenship status among immigrants

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the rich diversity of people of Asian origin or ancestry living in the United States and their views of identity. The study is part of the Center’s multiyear, comprehensive, in-depth quantitative and qualitative research effort focused on the nation’s Asian population. Its centerpiece is this nationally representative survey of 7,006 Asian adults exploring the experiences, attitudes and views of Asians living in the U.S. The survey sampled U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic ethnicity. It was offered in six languages: Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), English, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Responses were collected from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023, by Westat on behalf of Pew Research Center.

The Center recruited a large sample to examine the diversity of the U.S. Asian population, with oversamples of the Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese populations. These are the five largest origin groups among Asian Americans. The survey also includes a large enough sample of self-identified Japanese adults, making findings about them reportable. In this report, the six largest ethnic groups include those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity. Together, these six groups constitute 81% of all U.S. Asian adults, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey (ACS), and are the six groups whose attitudes and opinions are highlighted throughout the report. Survey respondents were drawn from a national sample of residential mailing addresses, which included addresses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Specialized surnames list frames maintained by the Marketing Systems Group were used to supplement the sample. Those eligible to complete the survey were offered the opportunity to do so online or by mail with a paper questionnaire. For more details, see the Methodology . For questions used in this analysis, see the Topline Questionnaire .

The survey research plan and questionnaire were reviewed and approved by Westat’s institutional review board (IRB), which is an external and independent committee of experts specializing in protecting the rights of research participants.

Even though the U.S. Asian population was the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the country from 2000 to 2019 , it is still a relatively small population. According to the 2021 American Community Survey, the country’s Asian population constitutes 7% of the U.S. population (of all ages) and 7% of adults (those ages 18 and older).

Pew Research Center designed this study with these details in mind to be as inclusive as possible of the diversity of Asian American experiences. Even so, survey research is limited when it comes to documenting the views and attitudes of the less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. To address this, the survey was complemented by 66 pre-survey focus groups of Asian adults , conducted from Aug. 4 to Oct. 14, 2021, with 264 recruited participants from 18 Asian origin groups. Focus group discussions were conducted in 18 different languages and moderated by members of their origin groups.

Findings for less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S., those who are not among the six largest Asian origin groups, are grouped under the category “Other” in this report and are included in the overall Asian adult findings in the report. These ethnic origin groups each make up about 2% or less of the Asian population in the U.S., making it challenging to recruit nationally representative samples for each origin group. The group “Other” includes those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or Hispanic ethnicity. Findings for those who identify with two or more Asian ethnicities are not presented by themselves in this report but are included in the overall Asian adult findings.

To learn more about how members of less populous Asian origin groups in the U.S. identify, see the quote sorter based on our focus group discussions. There, you can read how participants describe their identity in their own words.

For this analysis, an additional national survey of 5,132 U.S. adults was conducted from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel . The survey of U.S. adults was conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Pew Research Center has conducted multiple studies that focus on Asian Americans. Previous demographic studies examined the diversity of origins , key facts , and rising income inequality among Asians living in the U.S. and key findings about U.S. immigrants. Qualitative studies have focused on what it means to be Asian in America as well as barriers to English language learning among Asian immigrants. Previous surveys have focused on concerns over discrimination and violence against Asian Americans, as well as studies about their religious beliefs . Find these publications and more on the Center’s Asian Americans topic page .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Center’s Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thought leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

The terms Asian, Asians living in the United States , U.S. Asian population and Asian Americans are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Ethnicity and ethnic origin labels, such as Chinese and Chinese origin, are used interchangeably in this report for findings for ethnic origin groups, such as Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese. For this report, ethnicity is not nationality. For example, Chinese in this report are those self-identifying as of Chinese ethnicity, rather than necessarily being a current or former citizen of the People’s Republic of China. Ethnic origin groups in this report include those who self-identify as one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity.

Less populous Asian origin groups in this report are those who self-identify with ethnic origin groups that are not among the six largest Asian origin groups. The term includes those who identify with only one Asian ethnicity. These ethnic origin groups each represent about 2% or less of the overall Asian population in the U.S. For example, those who identify as Burmese, Hmong or Pakistani are included in this category. These groups are unreportable on their own due to small sample sizes, but collectively they are reportable under this category.

The terms Asian origins and Asian origin groups are used interchangeably throughout this report to describe ethnic origin groups.

Immigrants in this report are people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who are not U.S. citizens. I mmigrant , first generation and foreign born are used interchangeably to refer to this group.  

Naturalized citizens are immigrants who are lawful permanent residents who have fulfilled the length of stay and other requirements to become U.S. citizens and who have taken the oath of citizenship.

U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 U.S. states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

Second generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with at least one first-generation (immigrant) parent.

Third or higher generation refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories with both parents born in the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.

The nation’s Asian population is fast growing and diverse. Numbering more than 23 million, the population has ancestral roots across the vast, ethnically and culturally rich Asian continent. For Asians living in the United States, this diversity is reflected in how they describe their own identity. According to a new, nationwide, comprehensive survey of Asian adults living in the U.S., 52% say they most often use ethnic labels that reflect their heritage and family roots, either alone or together with “American,” to describe themselves. Chinese or Chinese American, Filipino or Filipino American, and Indian or Indian American are examples of these variations.

There are other ways in which Asians living in the U.S. describe their identity. About half (51%) of Asian adults say they use American on its own (10%), together with their ethnicity (25%) or together with “Asian” as Asian American (16%) when describing their identity, highlighting their links to the U.S.

And while pan-ethnic labels such as Asian and Asian American are commonly used to describe this diverse population broadly, the new survey shows that when describing themselves, just 28% use the label Asian (12%) on its own or the label Asian American (16%).

The survey also finds that other labels are used by Asian Americans. Some 6% say they most often prefer regional terms such as South Asian and Southeast Asian when describing themselves.

Asian adults see more cultural differences than commonalities across their group as well. When asked to choose between two statements – that Asians in the U.S. share a common culture, or that Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures – nearly all (90%) say U.S. Asians have many different cultures. Just 9% say Asians living in the U.S. share a common culture. This view is widely held across many demographic groups among Asian Americans, according to the survey.

The view that Asian Americans have many different cultures is also one held by the general public, according to another Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults, conducted in December 2022. Among all U.S. adults, 80% say Asians in the U.S. have many different cultures, while 18% say they share a common culture. 1

Though Asian Americans’ identities reflect their diverse cultures and origins, Asian adults also report certain shared experiences. A majority (60%) say most people would describe them as “Asian” while walking past them on the street, indicating most Asian adults feel they are seen by others as a single group, despite the population’s diversity. One-in-five say they have hidden a part of their heritage (their ethnic food, cultural practices, ethnic clothing or religious practices) from others who are not Asian, in some cases out of fear of embarrassment or discrimination. Notably, Asian adults ages 18 to 29 are more likely to say they have done this than Asians 65 and older (39% vs. 5%).

Asian adults in the U.S. also feel connected with other Asian Americans. About six-in-ten (59%) say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects their own lives, at least to some extent. 2 And about two-thirds (68%) of Asian Americans say it is extremely or very important to have a national leader advocating for the concerns and needs of the Asian population in the U.S.

The new survey also shows that large majorities of Asian adults share similar views on what it takes to be considered truly American. And they consider many of the same factors to be important in their views of the American dream.

These are among the key findings from Pew Research Center’s new survey of Asian American adults, conducted by mail and online from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023. This is the largest nationally representative survey of its kind to date that focused on Asian Americans. The survey was conducted in English and five Asian languages, among a representative sample of 7,006 Asian adults living in the United States. 

Asian Americans are 7% of the U.S. population, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Their population is diverse, with roots in more than 20 countries in East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. About 54% of the national Asian population are immigrants. The six largest origin groups (Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese), a focus of this survey and report, together account for 79% of all Asian Americans.

Overall, about 34% of Asian Americans are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents, and another 14% are of third or higher generation (meaning their parents were born in the U.S. as well), according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2022 Current Population Survey, March Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

This survey and report focus on Asian adults in the U.S. The six largest origin groups together account for 81% of Asian adults. And 68% of Asian American adults are immigrants, according to Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Additionally, 25% are the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents and 10% are of third or higher generation, according to Center analysis of government data.

The pan-ethnic term “Asian American” emerged in Berkeley, California, in the 1960s as part of a political movement to organize the diverse U.S. Asian population. The creation of an Asian American identity was in reaction to a long history of exclusion of Asians in the country, including the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s clarifying that Asians, including South Asians, are not “free White persons” and therefore were excluded from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. 3 Subsequently, the term was adopted by the federal government and today is the principal identity label used by media, academics, researchers and others to describe today’s diverse Asian American population.

In most cases today, someone is considered Asian or Asian American if they self-identify as such. But Asian Americans do not necessarily agree on which regional or ethnic groups from the Asian continent they consider to be Asian, according to the new survey. The vast majority of Asian adults say they consider those from East Asia, such as Chinese or Koreans (89%); Southeast Asia, such as Vietnamese or Filipinos (88%); and to a lesser extent South Asia such as Indians or Pakistanis (67%) to be Asian.

But Asian adults are split on whether they consider Central Asians such as Afghans or Kazakhs to be Asian (43% of Asian adults say they are). While about half of Indian adults (56%) say they would include Central Asians in the category Asian, fewer than half of Filipino (40%), Chinese (39%), Japanese (34%), Korean (32%) and Vietnamese (30%) adults consider them Asian.

Few Asians say they are knowledgeable about U.S. Asian history

Asian Americans have a long history in the United States. From Chinese laborers who helped build the first transcontinental railroad, to Japanese immigrants who arrived as plantation workers in what is now the state of Hawaii, to the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II, to Filipinos being treated as U.S. nationals while the Philippines was a U.S. territory, the Asian American experience has been a part of U.S. history.

With the passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a new wave of immigrants from Asia began arriving in the United States, creating a new, contemporary U.S. Asian history. The Vietnam War and other conflicts in Southeast Asia brought Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian refugees to the U.S. , first with the passage of the 1975 Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act and then with the Refugee Act of 1980. The 1990 Immigration Act raised immigration ceilings and set in place processes that allowed the flows of Asian immigrants, particularly of high-skilled immigrants, to continue and expand. The U.S. technology boom of the 1990s and 2000s attracted many high-skilled immigrants, particularly from India and China, to tech centers around the country.

This rich history, however, is little-known to Asian adults, according to the new survey. One-in-four (24%) say they are very or extremely informed about history of Asians in the United States, while an equal share (24%) say they are little or not at all informed.

The majority of those very or extremely informed about the history of Asians in the U.S. say they learned about this history through informal channels: internet (82%), media (76%) and family and friends (70%). In contrast, 49% learned about it from college or university courses and 39% from elementary through high school.

Immigrant ties shape Asian Americans’ identities and their life in the U.S.

Immigration experiences, connections with home countries, and how long someone has lived in the U.S. shape many Asian Americans’ identities. Among Asian adults in the U.S., immigrants are more likely than those who are U.S. born to describe their identity most often with their ethnic labels, either alone or together with the label American (56% vs. 41%).

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants are less likely than U.S.-born Asians (46% vs. 65%) to say they most often describe themselves as American in some way – whether by their ethnic label combined with American, as Asian American, or simply as American. Still, nearly half of Asian immigrants describe themselves in one of these three ways.

When it comes to identifying with the label Asian – either alone or as Asian American – immigrant and U.S.-born Asians are about equally likely to say they do so (28% and 29% respectively). Immigrant Asians are less likely than U.S.-born Asians to identify most often as Asian American (14% vs. 21%).

On the question of seeing themselves more as a “typical American” or “very different from a typical American,” Asian immigrant adults are far less likely than those born in the U.S. to think of themselves as a typical American (37% vs. 69%).

Nativity is also tied to how Asians in the U.S. develop their friendships. Those who immigrated to the U.S. are more likely to have friends who are Asian or of the same ethnicity as them than are U.S.-born Asians (56% vs. 38%).

Asian immigrants (15%) are also less likely than U.S.-born Asians (32%) to have ever hidden a part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. When asked in an open-ended question to explain why they hide aspects of their culture, some U.S.-born respondents mentioned phrases such as “fear of discrimination,” “being teased” and “embarrassing.”

Views of identity among Asian American immigrants are often tied to time spent in the U.S.

How long Asian immigrants have lived in the U.S. also shapes their identity and experiences. Those who arrived in the U.S. in the past 10 years are more likely than those who arrived more than 20 years ago to say they most often use their ethnicity, such as Filipino or Vietnamese, to describe themselves. And about two-thirds (65%) of those who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade describe their identity most often with their ethnicity’s name, either alone or combined with American, compared with 54% among those who have been in the country for more than two decades.

Roughly half (54%) of those who have arrived in the past 10 years say they most often use only their ethnicity to describe themselves, compared with just 21% of those who arrived more than two decades ago who say the same.

On the other hand, just 17% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the country in the past 10 years describe themselves most often as American, by their ethnic label combined with American, or as Asian American, while 59% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago do so.

When it comes to their circle of friends, 60% of Asian immigrants who arrived in the past 10 years say most or all of their friends are also Asian Americans, while 50% of those who arrived more than 20 years ago say the same.

And when asked if they think of themselves as typical Americans or not, Asian immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the past decade are substantially less likely than those who arrived more than two decades ago to say they are typical Americans (20% vs. 48%).

The new survey also explored the views Asian Americans have about traits that make one “truly American.” Overall, Asian Americans and the general U.S. population share similar views of what it means to be American. Nearly all Asian adults and U.S. adults say that accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds (94% and 91%), believing in individual freedoms (92% and 94%) and respecting U.S. political institutions and laws (89% and 87%) are important for being truly American.

Similarly, Asian Americans and the U.S. general population share in their views about the American dream. They say having freedom of choice in how to live one’s life (96% and 97% respectively), having a good family life (96% and 94%), retiring comfortably (96% and 94%) and owning a home (both 86%) are important to their view of the American dream. Smaller shares of Asian and U.S. adults (30% and 27%) say owning a business is important to their view of the American dream.

Here are other survey findings highlighting the diverse views and attitudes of Asian adults living in the U.S.:

• Indian adults are the most likely of the six largest Asian origin groups to say they most often use their ethnicity, without the addition of “American,” to describe themselves. About four-in-ten Indian adults (41%) say they do this. By comparison, smaller shares of Korean (30%), Filipino (29%), Chinese (26%) and Vietnamese (23%) adults do the same. Japanese adults (14%) are the least likely among the largest groups to use their ethnic identity term alone.
• Japanese adults are the least likely among the largest Asian origin groups to say they have friendships with other Asians. About one-in-three Japanese adults (34%) say most or all their friends share their own ethnicity or are otherwise Asian. By contrast, about half of all Indian (55%), Vietnamese (55%), Chinese (51%), Korean (50%) and Filipino (48%) respondents say the same.
• One-in-four Korean adults (25%) say they have hidden part of their heritage from people who are not Asian. Some 20% of Indian, 19% of Chinese, 18% of Vietnamese, 16% of Filipino and 14% of Japanese adults say they have done the same.
• Across the largest ethnic groups, about half or more say that what happens to Asians in the U.S. affects what happens in their own lives. About two-thirds of Korean (67%) and Chinese (65%) adults say this. By comparison, 61% of Japanese, 54% of Filipino, 55% of Indian and 52% of Vietnamese adults say they are impacted by what happens to Asians nationally.
• Most Asian adults among the largest ethnic origin groups say a national leader advancing the U.S. Asian community’s concerns is important. Roughly three-in-four Filipino (74%) and Chinese (73%) adults say it is very or extremely important to for the U.S. Asian community to have a national leader advancing its concerns. A majority of Vietnamese (69%), Korean (66%), Japanese (63%) and Indian adults (62%) says the same.  
• About half of Vietnamese registered voters (51%) identify with or lean to the Republican Party. In contrast, about two-thirds of Indian (68%), Filipino (68%) and Korean (67%) registered voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. And 56% of Chinese registered voters also associate with the Democratic Party. 
• This finding is from a nationally representative survey of 5,132 U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022, using the Center’s American Trends Panel . ↩
• In recent years, a major source of concern and fear among many Asian adults in the U.S. has been the rise in reported violence against Asian Americans . ↩
• For more on the history of the creation of an Asian American identity, see Lee, Jennifer and Karthick Ramakrishnan. 2019. “ Who counts as Asian .” Ethnic and Racial Studies. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Asian Americans
• Immigrant Populations
• Integration & Identity
• Racial & Ethnic Identity
• Racial Bias & Discrimination

Key facts about Asian Americans living in poverty

Methodology: 2023 focus groups of asian americans, 1 in 10: redefining the asian american dream (short film), the hardships and dreams of asian americans living in poverty, key facts about asian american eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years

• Published: 22 June 2023
• Volume 128 , pages 4383–4419, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Jingjing Ren 1 ,
• Fang Wang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7809-6394 2 &
• Minglu Li 3  

896 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study explores the interdisciplinary dynamics and characteristics of major original scientific achievements. Based on the perspective of knowledge integration, it combines bibliometric and social network analysis to investigate key publications of Nobel-winning research in natural science and their reference data. The data cover 585 laureates in Chemistry, Physics, and Physiology or Medicine awarded between 1901 and 2020, as well as 835 key publications published between 1887 and 2012 and their 10,894 citation publications. The main findings are as follows: First, interdisciplinary knowledge integration is an essential feature of original scientific breakthroughs, although influential achievements typically result from a novel combination of a larger amount of distant knowledge but in fewer disciplines. Second, the development of various disciplines in natural science has followed different dynamics of interdisciplinary processes for more than 100 years. Chemistry and Physics have experienced a dynamic shift from centralization to decentralization in terms of the concentrated degree of integrated disciplines, while Physiology or Medicine has shown a more generally concentrated trend. Third, Nobel-winning research presents a trend of a greater degree of knowledge interconnection, and the migration of combined research methods, tools, and basic disciplines contributes to the increasingly intense structure of knowledge combination. Bridging disciplines that facilitate knowledge exchange have shifted in the knowledge network across three time periods (the 1900s–1940s, 1950s–1970s, and 1980s and beyond).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross-discipline survey

The influence of geopolitics on research activity and international collaboration in science: the case of Russia

The impact of entrepreneurship research on other academic fields

“Key Publications” and “Nobel-winning research” are interchangeable terms in this paper. Different expressions are used for clarification when necessary.

In 1900s–‘40s, 8 of the 16 disciplines involved in the references were in the LS&BM field, and 1980s–, 15 of the 31 new disciplines were in the LS&BM field. This is in line with the increasing trend of the number of disciplines in the LS&BM field in WoS, reflected by the number of SCs for each publication.

The data used in Larivière et al. ( 2010 ) covers publications from 1900 to 2004. Three sources are included: data from 1900 to 1944 are drawn from the Century of Science in Thomson Scientific, which indexes 266 distinct journal titles covering most natural sciences and medical fields; data from 1945 to 1979 are from the natural sciences, engineering, and medical journals in the WoS; data from 1980 to 2004 are from the Science Citation Index in the WoS. Their data do not include articles in the fields of arts and humanities or the social sciences. Larivière et al. ( 2010 ) then divided these data into two scientific fields: medical fields (MED) and natural sciences and engineering (NSE), and calculated the average references of articles for each. Based on their results, we calculated the average references of each field for the three time periods (1900–‘40s, 1950s–‘70s, and 1980s–). As Century Science and SCI are both part of WoS, their classification of disciplines is comparable to ours.

Alexander, J., Bache, K., Chase, J., Freyman, C., Roessner, J. D., & Smyth, P. (2013). An exploratory study of interdisciplinarity and breakthrough ideas. In 2013 Proceedings of PICMET: Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (pp. 2130–2140).

Ávila-Robinson, A., Mejia, C., & Sengoku, S. (2021). Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research. Scientometrics, 126 (9), 7477–7502.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barthel, R., & Seidl, R. (2017). Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences—status and trends exemplified in groundwater research. PLoS ONE, 12 (1), e0170754.

Bernal, J. D. (2010). Science in history: The natural science in our time (Vol. 3). Faber and Faber Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Bjørk, R. (2020). The journals in physics that publish Nobel Prize research. Scientometrics, 122 (2), 817–823.

Brillouin, L. (1956). Science and information theory . Academic Press.

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534 (7609), 684–687.

Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2015). Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception? Scientometrics, 105 (3), 2215–2235.

Chan, H. F., Önder, A. S., & Torgler, B. (2016). The first cut is the deepest: Repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams. Scientometrics, 106 (2), 509–524.

Chang, Y., & Huang, M. (2012). A study of the evolution of interdisciplinarity in library and information science: Using three bibliometric methods. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 63 (1), 22–33.

Chariker, J. H., Zhang, Y., Pani, J. R., & Rouchka, E. C. (2017). Identification of successful mentoring communities using network-based analysis of mentor–mentee relationships across Nobel laureates. Scientometrics, 111 (3), 1733–1749.

Chen, S., Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2015). Are top-cited papers more interdisciplinary? Journal of Informetrics, 9 (4), 1034–1046.

Chen, S., Qiu, J., Arsenault, C., & Larivière, V. (2021a). Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers. Journal of Informetrics, 15 (1), 101124.

Chen, S., Song, Y., Qiu, J., & Larivière, V. (2021b). The effect of interdisciplinary components’ citation intensity on scientific impact. Library Hi Tech, 39 (4), 1084–1096.

Chris, F. (2015). Close to the edge: Co-authorship proximity of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine, 1991–2010, to cross-disciplinary brokers. Scientometrics, 103 (1), 267–299.

Gates, A. J., Ke, Q., Varol, O., & Barabási, A.-L. (2019). Nature’s reach: Narrow work has broad impact. Nature, 575 , 32–34.

Gingras, Y., & Wallace, M. L. (2010). Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: A bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics, 82 (2), 401–412.

Hansson, N., & Schlich, T. (2015). “Highly qualified loser”? Harvey Cushing and the Nobel Prize. Journal of Neurosurgery, 122 (4), 976–979.

Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37 (4), 740–760.

Larivière, V., Archambault, E., & Gingras, Y. (2010). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (2), 288–296.

Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2012). A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science’s first hundred years. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (5), 997–1016.

Leahey, E., Beckman, C., & Stanko, T. (2015). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (1), 3–51.

Leydesdorf, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (9), 1303–1319.

Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (1), 87–100.

Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Betweenness and diversity in journal citation networks as measures of interdisciplinarity—A tribute to Eugene Garfield. Scientometrics, 114 (2), 567–592.

Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C., & Bornmann, L. (2019). Interdisciplinarity as diversity in citation patterns among journals: Rao-Stirling diversity, relative variety, and the Gini coefficient. Journal of Informetrics, 13 (1), 255–269.

Li, J., Yin, Y., Fortunato, S., & Wang, D. (2019). A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates. Scientific Data, 6 (1), 33.

Li, X., Rousseau, R., Liang, L., Xi, F., Lü, Y., Yuan, Y., & Hu, X. (2022). Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research? Scientometrics, 127 (4), 2105–2122.

Liang, G., Hou, H., Kong, X., Ren, P., Hu, Z., Bu, Y., Kong, X., & Hu, Z. (2019). Understanding Noble Prizes winning articles: A bibliometric analysis. Current Science, 116 , 379–385.

Liu, Y., & Rousseau, R. (2012). Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas: The case of fiber optics communication. Information Processing & Management, 48 (4), 791–801.

Liu, Y., & Rousseau, R. (2014). Citation analysis and the development of science: A case study using articles by some Nobel prize winners. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65 (2), 281–289.

Luttenberger, F. (1996). Excellence and chance: The Nobel Prize case of E. Von Behring and É. Roux. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 18 (2), 225–239.

Marcovich, A., & Shinn, T. (2017). How scientific research instruments change: A century of Nobel Prize physics instrumentation. Social Science Information, 56 (3), 1–27.

Mazloumian, A., Eom, Y. H., Helbing, D., Lozano, S., & Fortunato, S. (2011). How citation boosts promote scientific paradigm shifts and Nobel Prizes. PLoS ONE, 6 (5), e18975.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159 (3810), 56–63.

Morillo, F., Bordons, M., & Gómez, I. (2001). An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 203–222.

Mukhopadhyay, R. (2009). Is the Nobel Prize in chemistry still relevant. Analytical Chemistry, 81 (19), 7866–7869.

National Academy of Sciences. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research . The National Academies Press.

Nesta, L., & Saviotti, P. P. (2005). Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm’ innovative performance: Evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 8 (1), 123–142.

Noboru, H. (2018). A history of modern chemistry . Chemical Industry Press.

Okamura, K. (2019). Interdisciplinarity revisited: Evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Communications, 5 (1), 1–9.

Petersen, A. M., Ahmed, M. E., & Pavlidis, I. (2021). Grand challenges and emergent modes of convergence science. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8 (1), 194.

Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., David, R. J., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72 (1), 117–147.

Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81 (3), 719–745.

Price, D. J. S., Merton, R. K., & Garfield, E. (1986). Little science, big science… and beyond . Columbia University Press.

Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management. Research Policy, 41 (7), 1262–1282.

Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82 (2), 263–287.

Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity: An attempt to provide a classification and clarification. Poiesis & Praxis, 51 (1), 53–69.

Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is life? The Physical aspect of a living cell . Cambridge University Press.

Sebastian, Y., & Chen, C. (2021). The boundary-spanning mechanisms of Nobel Prize winning papers. PLoS ONE, 16 (8), e0254744.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27 (3), 379–423.

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Shelton, R. D., & Holdridge, G. M. (2004). The US-EU race for leadership of science and technology: Qualitative and quantitative indicators. Scientometrics, 60 (3), 353–363.

Silva, F. N., Rodrigues, F. A., Oliveira, O. N., & da F. Costa, L. (2013). Quantifying the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals and fields. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (2), 469–477.

Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163 , 688.

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Stirling, A. (2007). A General framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, 4 (15), 707–719.

Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35 (2, Supplement), S77–S89.

Sun, Y., & Latora, V. (2020). The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics. Scientific Reports, 10 , 12097.

Szell, M., Ma, Y., & Sinatra, R. (2018). A Nobel opportunity for interdisciplinarity. Nature Physics, 14 , 1075–1078.

Tong, S., & Ahlgren, P. (2017). Evolution of three Nobel Prize themes and a Nobel snub theme in chemistry: A bibliometric study with focus on international collaboration. Scientometrics, 112 (1), 75–90.

Truc, A. (2022). Interdisciplinary Influences in behavioral economics: A bibliometric analysis of cross-disciplinary citations. Journal of Economic Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2011374

Turki, H., Hadj Taieb, M. A., & Ben Aouicha, M. (2020). Facts to consider when analyzing the references of Nobel Prize scientific background. Scientometrics, 124 (1), 787–790.

Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472.

Wagner, C. S., Horlings, E., Whetsell, T. A., Mattsson, P., & Nordqvist, K. (2015). Do Nobel laureates create prize-winning networks? An analysis of collaborative research in physiology or medicine. PLoS ONE, 10 (7), e0134164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134164

Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K., Keyton, J., Rafos, I., & Borner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5 , 14–26.

Wang, J., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10 (5), e0127298.

Wang, Q., & Schneider, J. W. (2020). Consistency and validity of interdisciplinarity measures. Quantitative Science Studies, 1 (1), 239–263.

Yan, E., Ding, Y., Cronin, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). A bird’s-eye view of scientific trading: Dependency relations among fields of science. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (2), 249–264.

Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015). Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE, 10 (8), e0135095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135095

Zhang, H., Wang, W., Zhang, R., & Ye, F. (2019). Characterizing interdisciplinarity of Nobel Laureates’ key publications. Current Science, 117 (7), 1148–1152.

Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glnzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (5), 1257–1265.

Zhang, L., Sun, B., Jiang, L., & Huang, Y. (2021). On the relationship between interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects on academic and broader impact. Research Evaluation, 30 (3), 256–268.

Zhou, H., Guns, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2022). Are social sciences becoming more interdisciplinary? Evidence from publications 1960–2014. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73 (9), 1201–1221.

Zhou, L. (2005). NIH future medical research field and strategy. World Science and Technology Research and Development, 3 , 97–102.

Zwanenburg, S., Nakhoda, M., & Whigham, P. (2022). Toward greater consistency and validity in measuring interdisciplinarity: A systematic and conceptual evaluation. Scientometrics, 127 , 7769–7788.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number [L1924013] and [72274191]) and the Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant number [Y9X3581H]). The authors greatly appreciate the two anonymous referees for their thorough and insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Canvard College, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

Jingjing Ren

Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Zhongguancun Beiyitiao 15, Beijing, 100190, People’s Republic of China

Bureau of Policy, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang Wang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

See Tables 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , and 10 .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ren, J., Wang, F. & Li, M. Dynamics and characteristics of interdisciplinary research in scientific breakthroughs: case studies of Nobel-winning research in the past 120 years. Scientometrics 128 , 4383–4419 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04762-x

Download citation

Received : 04 September 2022

Accepted : 03 June 2023

Published : 22 June 2023

Issue Date : August 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04762-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinary research
• Knowledge integration
• Nobel Prize
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research