Quantitative and qualitative studies of science have historically played radically different roles with opposing epistemological commitments. Using large-scale text analysis, we see that qualitative studies generate and value new theory, especially regarding the complex social and political contexts of scientific action, while quantitative approaches confirm existing theory and evaluate the performance of scientific institutions. Large-scale digital data and emerging computational methods could allow us to refigure these positions, turning qualitative artifacts into quantitative patterns into qualitative insights across many scales, heralding a new era of theory development, engagement, and relevance for scientists, policy-makers, and society.

Market bubbles emerge when asset prices are driven higher than the ultimate value without sustainability, as dramatic events and pivots of belief can burst them. We demonstrate the same phenomenon for biomedical knowledge when promising research receives inflated attention. We predict deflationary events by developing a diffusion index that captures whether research areas have been amplified within social and scientific bubbles or have diffused and become evaluated more broadly. By applying our diffusion approach, we first showcase two contrasting trajectories of cardiac stem cell research and cancer immunotherapy. We also trace the diffusion of 28,504 subfields in biomedicine comprising nearly 1.9M papers and more than 80M citations and demonstrate that limited diffusion of biomedical knowledge anticipates abrupt decreases in popularity. Our analysis emphasizes that this restricted diffusion, or a socio-epistemic bubble, leads to a dramatic collapse in relevance and attention accorded to scientific knowledge.

No abstract