Search results

Working in interdisciplinary teams is recognised as fundamental to contemporary workplaces in the knowledge economy. Current research across the disciplines clearly shows that working successfully in interdisciplinary teams is associated with increased productivity, improved outcomes, higher levels of creativity and enhanced personal fulfilment. But why is there a perception that it is hard to work in such teams in higher education contexts, and what does it take to work successfully in an interdisciplinary team? In this chapter we use embedded intergroup relations theory as a way of conceptualising the tensions and complexities that exist within interdisciplinary teams in universities. We draw on the constructs of group membership, parallel processes, group boundaries, power differences, affective patterns, cognitive formations and leadership behaviours to deconstruct why working in interdisciplinary teams often challenges academic identities, cultures and contexts. We then consider the core factors that underpin successful interdisciplinary teams, based on a synthesis of the work in the fields of social sciences, organisational behaviour, education, health and psychology. Understanding the complexities of working in interdisciplinary teams within universities provides insights into how to facilitate positive outcomes for all involved in interdisciplinary teamwork.

This study aims to establish a reliable index to identify interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation effectively. We constructed a new index, the D_Div index, for this purpose.

The D_Div index incorporates the degree of interdisciplinarity in the breakthrough index. To validate the index, a data set combining the publication records and citations of Nobel Prize laureates was divided into experimental and control groups. The validation methods included sensitivity analysis, correlation analysis and effectiveness analysis.

The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the D_Div index’s ability to differentiate interdisciplinary breakthrough papers from various categories of papers. This index not only retains the strengths of the existing index in identifying breakthrough innovation but also captures interdisciplinary characteristics. The correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation (correlation coefficient = 0.555) between the interdisciplinary attributes of scientific research and the occurrence of breakthrough innovation. The effectiveness analysis showed that the D_Div index reached the highest prediction accuracy of 0.8. Furthermore, the D_Div index outperforms the traditional DI index in terms of accuracy when it comes to identifying interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation.

This study proposed a practical and effective index that combines interdisciplinary and disruptive dimensions for detecting interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation. The identification and measurement of interdisciplinary breakthrough innovation play a crucial role in facilitating the integration of multidisciplinary knowledge, thereby accelerating the scientific breakthrough process.

Problem-based learning (PBL) has been suggested as an approach to education for sustainable development (ESD); however, the integration of interdisciplinarity is continuously challenged as it requires transfer and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries, as well as integration into an often already-overflowing curriculum. Even in formalized PBL universities emphasizing student responsibility for defining relevant problems, envisioning sustainable solutions and developing transversal competences, interdisciplinary collaboration is still often “relocated” to extra-curricular activities. This paper aims to explore Aalborg University (AAU) Megaprojects as a case for systematically integrating principles of ESD, and particularly interdisciplinarity, into PBL at scale.

The paper proposes a framework for analysing potentials and challenges concerning interdisciplinary framing and facilitation in large-scale projects based on PBL- and ESD-related research and presents findings from a case study on the first three rounds of megaprojects at AAU in 2019 and 2020.

The findings indicate that interdisciplinary megaprojects have the potential to motivate students to engage in sustainable development; however, they require systematic framing and guided facilitation, particularly in the early stages, for students to take ownership, prioritize collaboration and see the contribution to and connection between disciplines. They also need prioritization at all institutional levels to succeed as an institutional strategy of ESD.

The paper provides insights into the potentials and challenges of framing and facilitating large-scale megaprojects as an approach to integrate the SDGs and interdisciplinary collaboration into higher education. Hence, it aims to provide new insights, concepts and practices for ESD and PBL for sustainability.

The study investigates the effectiveness of an adaptive reflective framework that shifts the learning process toward a student-centered approach within an interdisciplinary learning environment. It aims to promote the learning process within an interdisciplinary learning environment that could promote the students’ design competencies.

The experiment was conducted at Basic Design studio, investigating three concepts of basic design principles: harmony, repetition and rhythm. A total of 80 first-year architectural students were enrolled in this study and placed into two equal groups: the “control group” received the traditional learning method and in contrast, the “experimental group” received an interdisciplinary reflective learning method using music as a relevant discipline.

The results showed that utilizing “Music Animation Machine” in the learning process significantly promoted students’ cognitive skills, engagement and design competencies. In addition, there was obvious evidence of excellent progress in learning basic design principles using the proposed reflective approach within a student-centered learning environment.

Many researchers focus on the importance of using music as a design tool. However, there is a crucial demand for investigating it as a learning tool. This research raised music effectiveness in the learning process of design principles. Thus, it incites to test more disciplines interconnected with architectural design. Other researchers could utilize this approach to ensure its effect on enhancing design competencies in the basic design and other architectural design courses.

This chapter describes the development and evaluation of an interdisciplinary group-based inquiry-based learning (IBL) project across two professional degree programmes in Scotland – educational psychology and social work. After outlining the policy and practice contexts for interdisciplinary inquiry-based learning, we articulate how IBL can facilitate professional identity development, mirror key aspects of professional practice such as interprofessional collaboration, and provide deep interdisciplinary learning. It is argued that the process of IBL provides an authentic and complex practice scenario which allows for the articulation and development of professional knowledge, values, identities and roles in collaboration with another professional grouping. The process of IBL development is described and we report on the results of a small-scale qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of the IBL approach to teaching and learning. The IBL activity enhanced students’ appreciation of interdisciplinary collaboration and allowed them to practice relevant skills. The views and reflections of students are reported and reinforce the relevance and efficacy of the approach. The chapter concludes with a series of suggestions and advice for the replication of using IBL as a tool to enhance and facilitate interdisciplinary learning.

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.

The process of knowledge creation is recognized as an essential process for organizational learning and innovation. Creating knowledge to solve the problems and complexities of today's world is like opening a black box. Hence, the higher education system and universities are exploring ways to overcome the complexities and cope with global changes. In this regard, interdisciplinary collaborations and activities are crucial in creating knowledge and innovation to counter these changes. This study aimed to know the experiences of Shiraz university interdisciplinary researchers in the field of humanities and also design and explain the conceptual model of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities.

In this qualitative research, grounded theory was implemented based on Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach. The sampling method was purposeful, and the participants included sixteen faculty members of shiraz university who had at least one experience of performing an interdisciplinary activity in one of the humanities fields. The first participant was selected as a pilot, and the rest were selected by snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were also used to collect data and continued until theoretical saturation was attained. After collecting the available information and interviewing the people, the data were organized and analyzed in three stages, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, using the proposed framework of Strauss and Corbin. Finally, the researcher reached a final and meaningful categorization.

In this research, the results were presented as a paradigm model of knowledge creation in the interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities. The paradigm model of the study consists of causal factors (internal and external factors), main categories (specialized competencies, scientific discourse, understanding of knowledge domains), strategies (structuring and synchronizing), context (individual and organizational), interfering factors (leadership, industry, and society), and consequences (individual and group achievement).

The present study aimed to explore the experiences of researchers in the interdisciplinary humanities research teams on knowledge creation in qualitative research. The study used Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach to recognize the causal factors of knowledge creation and the contexts. Discovering the main category of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams, the authors analyze the strategies and consequences of knowledge creation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of classroom interdisciplinary diversity, a type of classroom diversity that has been under-examined by previous literature, on the formation of university students’ entrepreneurial intentions (EI).

Based on Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour and the interactionist model of creative behaviour by Woodman et al. (1993), this paper provides empirical evidence demonstrating that classroom interdisciplinary diversity is important in the formation of university students’ EI at early educational stages using a cross-sectional study design and survey data on first-year business school students and partial least squares analysis.

Classroom interdisciplinary diversity is important in the formation of university students’ EI through its positive impact on entrepreneurial perceived behavioural control (PBC) (self-efficacy), a key antecedent of EI.

The results have important implications for educational practice as well as for both public and private organisations willing to promote entrepreneurial activity, in particular, the positive effects of combining people with different profiles and career fields of interest on entrepreneurial PBC (self-efficacy).

This study contributes to the scant literature on early university experiences in entrepreneurship education and their influence on EI. It studies the impact of an under-examined dimension of diversity (classroom interdisciplinary diversity) on the formation of students’ EI.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of enriched group work design and objective and perceived expertise diversity in interdisciplinary research groups with a focus on two critical group processes: task conflict and idea sharing.

Survey data were collected from 148 researchers and their advisors in 29 research labs at two doctorate-granting universities. The study tested the hypothesized model using hierarchical ordinary least squares regression and hierarchical linear modeling.

Results showed that objective and perceived (salient) expertise diversity jointly influenced task conflict. In addition, whether task conflict had a positive or negative impact on idea sharing depended on group work design enrichment and expertise diversity salience. Idea sharing improved group outcomes over and above the effects of task conflict.

Although this study could not test the causal relationships owing to a cross-sectional nature of data, it provides theoretical implications for the group work design, diversity and conflict literature.

Group work design represents an important tool for stimulating idea sharing in research groups. The findings suggest that managers should consider and manage the level of expertise diversity salience and the level of task conflict to increase the effectiveness of group work design.

The study provides insights on when task conflict may help creative groups. Work design and diversity salience represent important contextual features. The paper also examines both the objective and perceived diversity and disentangles task conflict and idea sharing.

The paper seeks to explore the ongoing development of an array of interdisciplinary specialist research areas in the accounting research community and its literature. It sets out to explore developments over the last 25 years with the aim to identify a number of important trends for the accounting scholarly community and to consider the role of AAAJ and various interdisciplinary accounting conferences and other journals.

This paper employs a literature‐based analysis, critique and argument. The paper's scope includes the trend towards specialisation by interdisciplinary accounting scholars in a contemporary context, where mainstream technical accounting research has privileged positivist research.

In sharp contrast with the successful emergence of interdisciplinary research in the 1980s, a trend towards at least a proportion of specialist research groupings is now seen, such as accounting historians, opting to retreat behind closed doors. Some researchers are increasingly exhibiting a trend towards seeking their own company focusing on attending only their specialised conferences, and publishing their work in their special interest journal. This carries a risk of retreating from engagement with the broader and particularly interdisciplinary accounting research community outside their own specialised confines. This could lead to fragmentation and fellow specialist researchers are invited to return to “the coming‐out parade” and re‐engage with the wider scholarly community.

Accounting scholars not only need to engage with their interdisciplinary specialised research areas, but also should connect with the wider scholarly community in order to maintain the pursuit of significant contribution to knowledge.

The paper focuses on personal values of accounting academic scholars as well as the importance of specialised and more generalised interdisciplinary research scholarly groups.

The paper alerts researchers to significant issues associated with the retreat into specialised groups and scholarly activities. It offers a practical illustration of a 25‐year history of accounting history research and calls for the coming‐out of accounting scholars from specialist groups to an engagement with the broader accounting interdisciplinary research community.