Interdisciplinarity and communication across research employing different methods under the loupe: A bibliometric examination of the literature on boundary-crossing ICT use

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of annual publications, 1992-2022.

Year	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative percent
1992	1	1 %	1 %
1996	1	1 %	1 %
2003	2	1 %	3 %
2005	1	1 %	3 %
2006	2	1 %	5 %
2007	2	1 %	6 %
2008	1	1 %	6 %
2009	1	1 %	7 %
2010	5	3 %	10 %
2011	4	3 %	13 %
2012	3	2 %	15 %
2013	11	7 %	22 %
2014	13	8 %	31 %
2015	9	6 %	36 %
2016	9	6 %	42 %
2017	9	6 %	48 %
2018	20	13 %	61 %
2019	17	11 %	72 %
2020	12	8 %	80 %
2021	26	17 %	97 %
2022	5	3 %	100 %
Total	154	100 %

Table 2. Distribution according to country region.

Sample country	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative percent
North America	8	5%	5%
Europe	51	33%	38%
Asia	23	15%	53%
Africa	59	38%	92%
Latin America	2	1%	93%
Multiple regions	5	3%	96%
Missing	6	4%	100%
Total	154	100%

Table 3. Distribution according to research methods and primary data source.

Methodology	Primary data type	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative percent
Mixed methods (n = 3)	Questionnaire/interviews	3	100	100
Qualitative study (n = 46)	Focus group	1	2%	2%
	Individual interviews	40	87%	89%
	Observations	1	2%	91%
	Diary	1	2%	93%
	Questionnaire	2	4%	98%
	Social media/online data	1	2%	100%
Quantitative study (n = 111)	Questionnaire survey	110	99%	99%
	Registry data	1	1%	100%

Figure 1. Most common topics as per KeyWords Plus.

Figure 2. Publications with the most local citations.

Figure 3. Publications with the most global citations.

Figure 4. Leading journals.

Figure 5. Co-Citation network of journals/disciplines.

Figure 6. Co-Citation analysis of authors, qualitative dataset (n = 46 studies).

Figure 7. Co-Citation analysis of authors, quantitative dataset (n = 106 studies).

Figure 8. Common KeyWords Plus words, qualitative dataset.

Figure 9. Common KeyWords Plus words, quantitative dataset.