Search results

The purpose of this study was to use Watkins and Marsick model of a learning organization (1993, 1996), the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire as a framework for interdisciplinary network collaboration and knowledge sharing.

The research team used a mixed-methods approach for data collection. Survey data was collected from 181 networks. In addition, data was collected from two focus groups with six participants each.

Results, in general, showed that the learning organization culture could be used as a framework for interdisciplinary network collaboration. In particular, results showed that shared vision, imbedded systems and knowledge sharing were key driving forces required for successful collaboration.

Theoretical and practical implications were discussed, and conditions for learning organization culture for networks were established.

People in a network era need more than training; they need ongoing, interdisciplinary, collaborative support to solve complex problems. Organizations can only work effectively if barriers to organizational learning were removed. This originality of this paper lies in applying learning organization framework at the network level.

This commentary describes (1) the role of group communication research in Communication Departments and (2) reflects my personal experiences in conducting group and team research with international and interdisciplinary group scholars. I describe the challenges associated with research funding, research space, participant pools, and research technology. Additionally, I address international and interdisciplinary influences (i.e., team science, university/government/industry collaboration) on communication research. This chapter concludes by identifying interdisciplinary contexts for group and team communication research including children and teens' groups, healthcare teams, and robot–human teams.

Despite decades of social science research into disasters, practice in the field continues to be informed largely from a technical perspective. The outcome is often a perpetuation of vulnerability, as narrowly defined technical interventions fail to address or recognize the ethical, historical, political and structural complexities of real-world community vulnerability and its causes. The authors propose that addressing this does not require a rejection of technical practice, but its evolution into a critical technical practice – one which foregrounds interdisciplinarity, inclusion, creativity and reflexivity, as means to question the assumptions, ideologies and delimited solutions built into the technical tools for understanding risks.

The authors present findings from three events they designed and facilitated, aimed at rethinking the engineering pedagogy and technical practice of disaster risk management. The first was a 2-day “artathon” that brought together engineers, artists and scientists to collaborate on new works of art based on disaster and climate data. The second was the Understanding Risk Field Lab, a 1-month long arts and technology un-conference exploring critical design practices, collaborative technology production, hacking and art to address complex issues of urban flooding. The third was a 4-month long virtual workshop on responsible engineering, science and technology for disaster risk management.

Each of these events uncovered and highlighted the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration and reflexivity in disaster risk modeling, communication and management. The authors conclude with a discussion of the key design elements that help promote the principles of a critical technical practice.

The authors propose “critical technical practice” which foregrounds principles of interdisciplinarity, inclusion, creativity and reflexivity, as a means to question the assumptions, ideologies and delimited solutions built into the technical tools for understanding climate and disaster risk.

In Digging into Data 3 (DID3) (2014-2016), ten funders from four countries (the USA, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands) granted $5.1 million to 14 project teams to pursue data-intensive, interdisciplinary, and international digital humanities (DH) research. The purpose of this paper is to employ the DID3 projects as a case study to explore the following research question: what roles do librarians and archivists take on in data-intensive, interdisciplinary, and international DH projects?

Participation was secured from 53 persons representing eleven projects. The study was conducted in the naturalistic paradigm. It is a qualitative case study involving snowball sampling, semi-structured interviews, and grounded analysis.

Librarians or archivists were involved officially in 3 of the 11 projects (27.3 percent). Perhaps more importantly, information professionals played vital unofficial roles in these projects, namely as consultants and liaisons and also as technical support. Information and library science (ILS) expertise helped DID3 researchers with issues such as visualization, rights management, and user testing. DID3 participants also suggested ways in which librarians and archivists might further support DH projects, concentrating on three key areas: curation, outreach, and ILS education. Finally, six directions for future research are suggested.

Much untapped potential exists for librarians and archivists to collaborate with DH scholars; a gap exists between researcher awareness and information professionals’ capacity.

This study aims to update and extend previous efforts gauging the status of the quickly evolving field of digital humanities (DH). Based on a sample of directly relevant DH literature during 2005–2020 from Web of Science, the study conducts a longitudinal examination of the research output, intellectual structures and contributors.

The study applies bibliometric methods, social network analysis and visualization tools to conduct a longitudinal examination.

The research output and scope of DH topics has grown over time with a widening and deepening field in four major development stages. Through both term frequency and term co-occurrence relationship networks, this study further identifies four major reoccurring topics and themes of DH research: (1) collections and contents; (2) technologies, techniques, theories and methods; (3) collaboration, interdisciplinarity and support and (4) DH evolution. Finally, leading DH research contributors (authors, institutions and nations) are also identified.

This study utilizes a greater number of and richer subject sources than previous efforts to identify the overall intellectual structures of DH research based on key terms from titles, abstracts and author keywords. It expands on previous efforts and furthers our understanding of DH research with more recent DH literature and richer subject sources from the literature.

Scholarly interest in interorganizational learning (IOL) has spiked in the past decade because of its potential to absorb, transfer and create valuable knowledge for enhanced innovative performance and sustained competitive advantage. However, only a handful of review studies exists on the topic. The evolution of IOL has not been studied explicitly and there is a lack of understanding of the field trends. To fill this gap, this paper aims to comprehensively review the literature on IOL and map its evolution and trends using bibliometric techniques. In particular, the authors use visualization of science mapping freeware to systematize the findings and interpret the results.

The authors synthesize the findings using “evaluative bibliometric techniques” to identify the quality and quantity indicators of the IOL research and use “relational bibliometric techniques” to determine the structural indicators of the IOL field such as the intellectual foundations and emerging research themes of IOL research.

Through an analysis of 208 journal publications obtained from the Scopus database, the authors determine the leading authors, countries, highly cited papers and their contributions to the IOL literature. By identifying the key hotspots, intellectual foundations and emerging trends of IOL, the authors provide promising avenues in IOL research.

To the best of the knowledge, this study is the first to systematically review the IOL literature and provide future research directions.

Growth in scientific production and productivity over the 20th century resulted significantly from three major countries in European science – France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Charting the development of universities and research institutes that bolster Europe’s key position in global science, we uncover both stable and dynamic patterns of productivity in the fields of STEM, including health, over the 20th century. Ongoing internationalization of higher education and science has been accompanied by increasing competition and collaboration. Despite policy goals to foster innovation and expand research capacity, policies cannot fully account for the differential growth of scientific productivity we chart from 1975 to 2010.

Our sociological neo-institutional framework facilitates explanation of differences in institutional settings, organizational forms, and organizations that produce the most European research. We measure growth of published peer-reviewed articles indexed in Thomson Reuters’ Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).

Organizational forms vary in their contributions, with universities accounting for nearly half but rising in France; ultrastable in Germany at four-fifths, and growing at around two-thirds in the United Kingdom. Differing institutionalization pathways created the conditions necessary for continuous, but varying growth in scientific production and productivity in the European center of global science. The research university is key in all three countries, and we identify organizations leading in research output.

Few studies explicitly compare across time, space, and different levels of analysis. We show how important European science has been to overall global science production and productivity. In-depth comparisons, especially the organizational fields and forms in which science is produced, are crucial if policy is to support research and development.

Following the positive call for a special issue on Architectural Pedagogies and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the purpose of this overview article is to contextualise reflections on nine selected articles, within recent efforts made by professional organisations, which aspire to blend sustainable development into the collective psyche of both academics and future professionals.

This article adopts four lines of inquiry by capturing key insights on the place of sustainable design knowledge in architectural education validation and accreditation at both national and global scales; presenting analytical narratives on the recent global efforts that embrace excellence in architectural pedagogy through addressing SDGs; elucidating the two knowledge spaces, centred on pedagogy and sustainability, which are strengthened and supported by Archnet-IJAR, and offering reflections on the nine articles published in this special issue that aims at integration of the two knowledge spaces.

Contextualisation and reflective narratives offer insights into current efforts and demonstrate a clear commitment of professional organisations to embed values relevant to SDGs. Efforts of the Education Commission of the International Union of Architects and the UNESCO-UIA Validation Council of Architectural Education appear to have advanced significantly over recent years with a clear prospect for a sustainable future. The nine articles published in this special issue respond clearly to the goal of Quality Education (SDG4), but not all of them have addressed the goals related to Good Health and Well-being (SDG3) and Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG11), and their place in architectural pedagogy. However, they take a step further to address aspects of climate change, globalisation, sustainable architecture and urbanism, social sustainability, global north/global south dialectics and decolonisation.

The findings offer opportunities to recognise efforts by professional organisations, map key pedagogical experiments into these efforts, while providing lessons learned from best practices aiming to effectively integrate SDGs into architectural pedagogy.

No serious effort has been made to articulate the integration of SDGs into architectural education at the level of research or design studio pedagogical practice. Addressing architectural pedagogies and sustainable development is predicated on the fact that there is very little written or known on integrating SDGs into architectural education and design pedagogy. Understanding, appreciating, and sharing various efforts and approaches to incorporate SDGs into architectural pedagogy is a key step towards a sustainable future.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the concept of cognitive proximity, by studying it as a process in groups and dissecting how cognitive proximity is related to knowledge creation that results, for example, in articles and technological applications. Cognitive proximity, i.e. similar knowledge bases, is essential in creating knowledge in groups whose members have different professional and cultural backgrounds, which is often the case in internationalizing universities and companies.

The case study includes four top‐level international academic groups from Finnish universities that have a foreign leader. The groups were followed from 2007‐2009. Interviews and diaries are analysed using mental mapping.

According to the results, cognitive proximity is achieved through cooperation and suitable tasks. Knowledge is created during cognitive friction – when members are becoming cognitively proximate through knowledge base content, but developing a cognitive distance through a knowledge base structure.

This paper is one of the earliest efforts to study cognitive proximity as a process in groups. Cognitive proximity has especially raised interest in the fields of knowledge management and economic geography.

This chapter traces the history of digital libraries (DLs) in the United States through the funding sources that have supported DL research and development over the past decade and a half. A set of related questions are addressed: How have the mission and goals of funding agencies affected the types of projects that have been funded? What have been the deliverables from funded projects and how have the goals of the funding agencies shaped those deliverables? Funding agencies have exerted strong influence over research and development in DLs, and different funding agencies have funded different types of projects, with varying sets of concerns for driving the various fields that feed into DLs. This chapter will address the impact that DL funding has had on the development of research in the field of Library and Information Science, as well as on the practice of librarianship.