학술 영역과 정책 영역 간 융합연구의 정합성 비교 분석: 국가연구개발 우수성과 100선을 중심으로

This study empirically analyzes the degree of alignment between the concept of convergence in the academic and policy domains. Using data from Korea’s National R&D Excellence 100 Selections (2015–2024), projects were embedded and mapped onto the Leiden Cluster. Structural indicatorsㅡincluding silhouette coefficient, Rao-Stirling diversity, and betweenness centralityㅡwere used to assess convergence characteristics. A simple convergence/non-convergence comparison showed minimal distinction. However, grouping fields by structural tendencies revealed clear differences: exploratory and socially problem-oriented domains (e.g., Life Sciences/Oceans, Energy/Environment, Convergence, Basic Research/Infrastructure) showed higher interdisciplinarity, while clear traditional academic domains (e.g., Mechanical/Materials, Information/Electronics) displayed stronger internal cohesion. These findings highlight the need to redefine convergence as a strategic policy concept based on knowledge structure rather than as a fixed administrative category. The study contributes by providing a data-driven approach to evaluating convergence policy and offers a framework to bridge academic analysis with practical policy design.