Search results

The purpose of this research was to understand the role of interdisciplinarity in research and how communication structures and processes at universities facilitates such work.

Twenty-one semi-structured interviews with administrators, faculty, and staff from US R-1 Carnegie-designated higher education institutions were conducted.

Institutional culture reportedly drives interdisciplinary research efforts and participants offered different values associated with pursuing interdisciplinary work. Participants also shared formal and informal incentives that motivate their pursuit of interdisciplinary collaborations. Participants seemed to prefer a blended centralized-decentralized approach for the communication function's support of interdisciplinary research efforts.

This research fills a gap in understanding of how organizational capacities, structures and processes support collaborative research work and public communication about such work.

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.

Given the importance of interdisciplinary research in addressing wicked problems, this paper aims to explore the development of and prospects for interdisciplinary research through evidence gained from academic accountants in Australia.

Extant literature is complemented with interviews of accounting academics in Australia to reveal the challenges and opportunities facing interdisciplinary researchers and reimagine prospects for the future.

Evidence indicates that accounting academics hold diverse views toward interdisciplinarity. There is also confusion between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the journals in which academic accountants publish. Further, there is mixed messaging among Deans, disciplinary leaders and emerging scholars about the importance of interdisciplinary research to, on the one hand, publish track records and, on the other, secure grants from government and industry. Finally, there are differing perceptions about the disciplines to be encouraged or accepted in the cross-fertilisation of ideas.

This paper is novel in gathering first-hand data about the opportunities, challenges and tensions accounting academics face in collaborating with others in interdisciplinary research. It confirms a discouraging pressure for emerging scholars between the academic research outputs required to publish in journals, prepare reports for industry and secure research funding, with little guidance for how these tensions might be managed.

This study analyzed the interdisciplinary characteristics of Chinese research studies in library and information science (LIS) measured by knowledge elements extracted through the Lexicon-LSTM model.

Eight research themes were selected for experiment, with a large-scale (N = 11,625) dataset of research papers from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database constructed. And it is complemented with multiple corpora. Knowledge elements were extracted through a Lexicon-LSTM model. A subject knowledge graph is constructed to support the searching and classification of knowledge elements. An interdisciplinary-weighted average citation index space was constructed for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions based on knowledge elements.

The empirical research shows that the Lexicon-LSTM model has superiority in the accuracy of extracting knowledge elements. In the field of LIS, the interdisciplinary diversity indicator showed an upward trend from 2011 to 2021, while the disciplinary balance and difference indicators showed a downward trend. The knowledge elements of theory and methodology could be used to detect and measure the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions.

The extraction of knowledge elements facilitates the discovery of semantic information embedded in academic papers. The knowledge elements were proved feasible for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and exploring the changes in the time sequence, which helps for overview the state of the arts and future development trend of the interdisciplinary of research theme in LIS.

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.

A shared cognitive schema is the fundamental source of tacit understanding within a team. This study aims to address how such a shared cognitive schema emerges and evolves in an interdisciplinary research team.

This study uses an exploratory single case study to analyze the emergence and evolution of a shared cognitive schema in an interdisciplinary research team systematically. The authors spent more than two years collecting data from the IAM team via semistructured interviews, archival data and observation. Subsequently, a framework for the resulting mechanism model was developed by analyzing the data using a three-step process.

This study shows that as the interdisciplinary research team develops, the shared cognitive schema passes through three stages: overlapping cognitive schema, complementary cognitive schema and synergetic cognitive schema. The mechanisms of overlap, complement and synergy play important roles. The convergent roles of partner-based recruiting, knowledge categorization and following the existing institution facilitate the overlapping of knowledge structures. Complementary cognitive schema sharing is facilitated by interdisciplinary member selection, knowledge stock expansion and the effects of accomplished mentors. The synergetic behaviors of group voice, interactive cognition and adaptive learning facilitate synergetic cognitive schema sharing.

This study is the first to discuss the emergence and evolution of a shared cognitive schema at the microlevel of knowledge structure and belief structure. It offers a new theoretical perspective on the development rules of scientific research teams and provides practical enlightenment regarding the establishment and operation of interdisciplinary research teams.

To assess whether interdisciplinary research evaluation scores vary between fields.

The authors investigate whether published refereed journal articles were scored differently by expert assessors (two per output, agreeing a score and norm referencing) from multiple subject-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the REF2021 UK national research assessment exercise. The primary raw data was 8,015 journal articles published 2014–2020 and evaluated by multiple UoAs, and the agreement rates were compared to the estimated agreement rates for articles multiply-evaluated within a single UoA.

The authors estimated a 53% agreement rate on a four-point quality scale between UoAs for the same article and a within-UoA agreement rate of 70%. This suggests that quality scores vary more between fields than within fields for interdisciplinary research. There were also some hierarchies between fields, in the sense of UoAs that tended to give higher scores for the same article than others.

The results apply to one country and type of research evaluation. The agreement rate percentage estimates are both based on untested assumptions about the extent of cross-checking scores for the same articles in the REF, so the inferences about the agreement rates are tenuous.

The results underline the importance of choosing relevant fields for any type of research evaluation.

This is the first evaluation of the extent to which a careful peer-review exercise generates different scores for the same articles between disciplines.

This paper aims to explore the citation aging pattern of Library and Information Science (LIS) and further investigate the impact of interdisciplinary citation on the aging of scientific literature.

The study examines LIS journal articles published between 2016 and 2020. Articles were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) and were organized using Scopus's discipline classification system. Citation aging patterns within LIS are described using literature aging indicators. The study examines the effect of interdisciplinary citations on the literature aging pattern by comparing the half-life of LIS literature and the median age of interdisciplinary citations.

The study results show that the citation aging rate of LIS in the last five years has been slow, and the rate of slowing down is decreasing. Interdisciplinary citations are sourced from various disciplines, focusing on computer science, social sciences and business. The proportion of self-citations is declining. The Reference Diversity Index (RDI) increases from 0.690 to 0.724 between 2016 and 2020. Currently, the median age of interdisciplinary citations is higher than the LIS's half-life. It has a diminishing effect on the citation aging rate. But the median age of interdisciplinary citations is decreasing. The interdisciplinary citation may contribute to the literature aging rate in the future. The effect of interdisciplinary citation on literature aging needs to be judged dialectically.

This study still has some limitations. Due to the wide variety of citation journals in LIS, there is no database to cover all journals, so it is impossible to match all citation journals with disciplines. Therefore, it is still feasible to analyze interdisciplinary citations based on the two-eight principle for large-scale data. This approach necessarily sacrifices some of the precision of the study. However, the results of this paper can still be helpful for the development of the discipline. In addition, LIS is a discipline with solid cross-cutting properties, and this paper concludes only with this interdisciplinary discipline in mind. It is necessary to test the applicability of the findings to other disciplines.

The study explores the impact of interdisciplinary citation on literature aging from a professional communication perspective. The results reveal underlying reasons for the aging of scientific literature. These findings further enrich the study of the effect of interdisciplinary communication.

This study explores the extent of undergraduate students' engagement in interdisciplinary learning experiences across their academic journey and its potential correlation with elevated levels of self-efficacy in learning. Furthermore, the research investigates how the clarity of career decisions and future goals contributes to the perception of relevance, value and alignment of interdisciplinary learning experiences among undergraduate students.

Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire in a longitudinal survey administered annually to undergraduate students at a university in northern Taiwan over four waves from 2018 to 2021. The sample analyzed for this study consisted of 123 undergraduate students who willingly and continuously participated in the research throughout the specified period.

The results showed that self-efficacy within interdisciplinary learning experiences could be classified into three clusters: high efficacy, moderate efficacy and fluctuating efficacy. The determinants influencing these clusters include career decisions and years spent in university. Undergraduate students who have determined their career decisions and are in their latter two years of undergraduate studies demonstrate higher self-efficacy in interdisciplinary learning. Conversely, students who have yet to determine their career decisions exhibit a fluctuating pattern of self-efficacy across the three interdisciplinary learning categories.

Two key limitations of this research include a small sample size and a confined university-specific context, potentially constraining the applicability of the results to a broader population.

This study contributes to the interdisciplinary learning experience in higher education by explaining the significance of undergraduates' self-efficacy and career-related factors. Whereas most research has focused on the effects of self-efficacy, this study investigated the factors that influence undergraduates' self-efficacy.

This article considers how the evaluation of research teams can better account for the challenges of transdisciplinarity, including their larger team size and more diverse and permeable membership, as well as the tensions between institutional pressures on individuals to publish and team goals.

An evaluation team was retained from 2015 to 2020 to conduct a comprehensive external evaluation of a five-year EPSCoR-funded program undertaken by a transdisciplinary research team. The formative portion of the evaluation involved monitoring the program’s developmental progress, while the summative portion tracked observable program outputs and outcomes as evidence of progress toward short- and long-term goals. The evaluation team systematically reviewed internal assessments and gathered additional data for an external assessment via periodic participation in team meetings, participant interviews and an online formative team survey (starting in Year 2).

Survey participants had a better understanding of the project’s “Goals and Vision” compared to other aspects. “Work Roles,” and particularly the timeliness of decision-making, were perceived to be a “Big Problem,” specifically in regard to heavy travel by key managers/leadership. For “Communication Channels,” Year 2 tensions included differing views on the extent to which management should be collaborative versus “hierarchical.” These concerns about communication demonstrate that differences in language, culture or status impact the efficiency and working relationship of the team. “Authorship Credit/Intellectual Property” was raised most consistently each year as an area of concern.

The study involves the use of a unique survey approach.