TY  - JOUR
AB  - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria for and definitions of disciplinarity, and how they differ between different types of literature. Design/methodology/approach– This synthesis is achieved through a purposive review of three types of literature: explicit conceptualizations of disciplinarity; narrative histories of disciplines; and operationalizations of disciplinarity. Findings– Each angle of discussing disciplinarity presents distinct criteria. However, there are a few common axes upon which conceptualizations, disciplinary narratives, and measurements revolve: communication, social features, topical coherence, and institutions. Originality/value– There is considerable ambiguity in the concept of a discipline. This is of particular concern in a heightened assessment culture, where decisions about funding and resource allocation are often discipline-dependent (or focussed exclusively on interdisciplinary endeavors). This work explores the varied nature of disciplinarity and, through synthesis of the literature, presents a framework of criteria that can be used to guide science policy makers, scientometricians, administrators, and others interested in defining, constructing, and evaluating disciplines.
VL  - 71
IS  - 4
SN  - 0022-0418
DO  - 10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082
AU  - Sugimoto Cassidy R.
AU  - Weingart Scott
PY  - 2015
Y1  - 2015/01/01
TI  - The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity
T2  - Journal of Documentation
PB  - Emerald Group Publishing Limited
SP  - 775
EP  - 794
Y2  - 2024/04/25
ER  -