Search results

The chapter studies the flow experience among academicians and the determinants of flow initiation and development. The academicians’ studied, have both research and teaching duties. The data for the study is drawn from 12 interviews conducted with academicians in India, with science, social science, and statistics as their fields of study. The study finds that different psychological needs can lead to flow experiences. It is proposed that the relationship between flow and psychological needs is influenced by personality traits (openness to experience and conscientiousness), which are reflected in day-day behavior (spontaneity and structuring). Interaction between humans (either students or collaborators) induced and strengthened flow-like feelings and emotional well-being, subject to certain conditions. Problem solving was found to be the key determinant of flow. Overall flow was found to be higher among research-oriented people working in science.

Purpose – In this chapter, we report on the lessons of cross-disciplinary collaborative workshop between sociologists and engineering educators to synthesize what is known about legitimating and disseminating educational reform and to develop a research agenda for what needs to be known in order to spread educational reform and to overcome on-the-ground resistance to change.

Methodology/approach – This chapter is based on a case study of this workshop, describing the “white papers” prepared by participants prior to the workshop and the research agendas that emerged from discussions of them during the workshop and after.

Findings – The workshop resulted in a sophisticated research agenda as well as some modest efforts to create cross-disciplinary links to implement it. However, a one-time workshop did not overcome institutional barriers to this kind of activity.

Research limitations – Since this is a case study of a single collaboration we cannot generalize to all cross-disciplinary collaborations, although it does provide an example of what works to facilitate cross-disciplinary efforts and what obstacles remain.

Practical implications – An advantage to the workshop was the absence of institutional barriers to cross-disciplinary collaboration. Attendees were removed from their institutions, departments, disciplines, and turf battles. However, without increased institutional support for cross-disciplinary efforts, such as this one, the value of the social sciences for diffusing the innovations of science and engineering reform movements may not be realized.

Educators often stress the importance and value of interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary measures that contribute to the holistic development of students through attention to experiential learning activities. However, collaborative approaches that reach outside or across disciplines are often overwhelming and time consuming for faculty to develop. Often, faculty would like to expand learning opportunities through collaborative approaches for their students to experience successful engagement although they may not have the “know-how.” This chapter provides a framework that can be used to develop both collaborative interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary teaching and inquiry-based engagement. The authors developed the PLACERS model (Plan, Create, Engage, Reflect, and Share) in an effort to extend learning experiences in a preprofessional learning environment and to advocate collaboration. Implementing this model, along with a variety of inquiry-based activities produces opportunities for students to increase content knowledge, engagement, and critical thinking skills. Moreover, it provides a guide/schema for educators to delve into collaborative instruction. This chapter documents the process of interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary collaboration between social science and professional practice faculty who developed transformational approaches to expand inquiry-based teaching through experiential learning. As a result of this collaboration, structured reflection strategies were developed which allowed students to: practice critical thinking and problem-solving skills, utilize 21st century technology, and increase content knowledge.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to establish some of the reasons why there exists a chasm between micro and macro disciplines of organizational sciences. We aim to suggest some fecund areas for bridging the gap between the micro and macro side of our science.

Methodology/Approach – In this chapter, we have polled our colleagues to ascertain the areas that they believe have the most potential to bridge the micro–macro divide. In addition, we have reviewed extant literature to identify some of the areas where bridging work has already started.

Findings – Through our survey and literature review, we have identified a number of areas which can help in narrowing the micro–macro divide.

Social Implications – By suggesting some ways to bridge the micro–macro divide, this chapter helps in setting future research agenda that will help in viewing organizational problems from multiple lenses. Our work also encourages the scholars from various disciplines to explore ways that can integrate the broad disciplines of organizational sciences.

Originality/Value of Paper – We have attempted to take the pulse of researchers in management disciplines concerning the chasm between micro and macro disciplines, and we have tried to integrate this information with the bridging research that has already been reported. Moreover, we have suggested a number of reasons why this gap is so difficult to remediate. We discuss how bridging the gap is connected to the way in which we train, develop, and reward nascent scholars in our field.

Teacher retention and continued teacher growth and development have long been critical global issues in education. The recent pandemic crisis and subsequent “great resignation” (Lodewick, 2022) have returned our attention to the need for positive and enriching educational landscapes that promote teacher collaborative reflection, knowledge, and growth in order to sustain teachers in the field. This chapter explores the ongoing teacher learning that has occurred within two knowledge communities (Craig, 1995b) in the United States. It begins with an overview of Craig's early work with teachers, during which her conceptualization of knowledge communities emerged. According to Craig, knowledge communities are safe, collaborative spaces that cohere around teachers' intra/inter-school dialogue and their storying/restorying (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996, 1998) of experiences. Additionally, knowledge communities (Craig, 1995b) begin with originating events, allow teachers' experiences (Dewey, 1938) to resonate with others in the group, feature reciprocity of members' mindful responses, and promote the development of shared ways of knowing. Equally important, knowledge communities evolve and change, fuel ongoing reflection in community, and bring moral horizons into view. Employing these knowledge community qualities as our lens, we examine the interactions of the Portfolio Group and the Faculty Academy. The Portfolio Group is a teacher/teacher educator/researcher group formed in 1998 during a US education reform era (Craig, Curtis et al., 2020). Its sister group, the Faculty Academy, is a cross-institutional, cross-discipline higher education group of teacher educators/researchers formed in 2002 (Craig, Turchi et al., 2020). Employing a parallel stories representation (Craig, 1999), exemplars (Mishler, 1990) from both groups show how teacher collaborative groups have the capacity to be safe spaces in which critical professional dialogue, reflective exchanges, and generous scholarship occur among members. Furthermore, they are nurturing spaces in which teachers can thrive and be their best-loved selves (Craig, 2013; Schwab, 1954/1978). These two groups exemplify the ways in which knowledge communities support teacher collaboration, promote ongoing teacher growth and development, and foster teacher sustainability.

We are three teacher educators – Christi, Bethney, and Abby – representing literacy, educational leadership, and special education, who have collaborated in self-studies of our teacher education practices (S-STEP) over a period of five academic years. Through this collaborative engagement, we came to recognize the similarities and differences in our language and values found within each of our individual disciplinary cultures. It was through the juxtaposition of studying ourselves alongside of that of our colleagues that we further generated a shared culture and common understandings. In our chapter, we explore the ways in which self-study enabled collaboration with teacher educators representing different disciplines. The research brought to light specific disciplinary values, assumptions, and terminology that, when articulated and examined among critical friends, facilitated our ability to both broaden and deepen our individual understandings of teacher education practices in light of each other’s diverse disciplinary perspectives.

This chapter aims to seek insight into engagement in context, conceived through Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE), which can be perceived as a condition for sustained disciplinary and interdisciplinary interest and motivation. Despite ongoing trends in the design and implementation of enriched learning environments that are expected to boost effective use of material and digital tools along with new sources of information, the empirical research on their motivational and emotional consequences is still in its infancy. These environments challenge, cognitively as well as motivationally, emotionally, and socially, both students and teachers alike. Keeping in mind the challenging times for future learning and work-life, engagement and motivation are discussed with a focus on science disciplines. In these fields, there is a strong call for proficient skills in collaborative team learning, problem-solving, and collective knowledge creation in anticipation of an uncertain, challenging future. Knowledge-intensive work and knowledge demands are escalating along with fast technological development, and simultaneously tasks that demand new, not yet even existing and partly unpredicted knowledge and expertise are increasing. In addition, knowledge and expertise are progressively more distributed, with new knowledge, products and innovations being created in collaboration that crosses disciplinary borders. In this chapter, three case illustrations in different science fields and learning contexts provide empirical evidence for the discussion on the learned lessons from these illustrated studies designed to support PDE, and the potential significance of PDE for productive collaboration, sustained disciplinary interest, and motivation given later development of adaptive expertise.

This chapter examines how innovation and research are essential to the advancement of science, the economy, and society. We examine the current status of scientific research in Saudi Arabia, highlighting issues like financial limitations and a lack of skilled researchers. We emphasize how important it is to develop the next generation of scientists in order to transform existing practices and improve the state of scientific research in the country.

Proficiency in research and innovation is crucial for expanding the frontiers of knowledge, empowering scientists to tackle intricate problems, and advancing scientific rigor. These abilities also support the use of evidence in decision-making, enabling researchers to provide empirical data that inform practices and policies in a variety of industries. Sustained growth requires the formation of future leaders, who promote knowledge exchange and multidisciplinary collaboration.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s significant spending on science, problems still exist. Addressing governance deficiencies is demonstrated by the establishment of the Research, Development, and Innovation Authority in 2021. The nation has grown in the world’s scientific rankings, drawing eminent specialists and fostering cross-border cooperation. Still, there is room for improvement, especially when it comes to fostering a culture of research, improving financing sources, and encouraging international collaboration. It is imperative that these problems are resolved in order to avoid stagnation, guarantee ongoing innovation, and take advantage of chances for society’s progress.

The chapter ends with a call to action that highlights how quickly improvements must be made. Failing to do so runs the risk of stifling the advancement of science, preventing the creation of new technologies, and prolonging complicated issues. To lower risks, seize opportunities, and ensure that research and innovation continue to advance for the good of society, immediate action is necessary.

Ask leaders what their organizations need more of to thrive, and many will identify collaboration. Yet many collaborative efforts fail. A focus on the inner workings of teams, to the exclusion of the ecosystem in which teams work, has masked the importance of a collaborative context. We undertook a single case study of an exemplar firm with the intent of offering a nuanced illustration of the collaborative workplace. We illustrate how three contextual factors related to work, relationships, and behaviors shift the setting from a place where collaboration is hard to do, to one that embodies collaboration as a widespread competence.

Research models and practices change rapidly. While evidence of such changes includes cross-campus collaborations and multi-authored scholarship, faculty development opportunities also signal what is to come. In this case study, authors representing diverse disciplines examine what faculty development programs reveal about the future of academic research. The authors offer an analysis of faculty support programs across the country as a foundation, and then provide an examination of initiatives in place at their four-year regional comprehensive institution in the United States. The authors then report on the outcomes of these programs for research productivity, with a focus on opportunities that were available to all faculty across the university. Finally, the authors offer perspective on the future of academic research based on findings from examining these programs. The authors suggest that the future of research will focus on (1) collaborative design(s) of research-related support, (2) support structures and programs that encourage and facilitate cross-campus and interdisciplinary research collaborations and sharing, (3) incentive for integrating areas of research with teaching and service, and relatedly (4) programs that encourage faculty to span academic research with industry or community partnerships and collaborations, especially ones that can generate revenue or produce future research, development, or funding streams.