Search results

Traditional and nontraditional interdisciplinary teams bring together varied professionals with diversity in expertise and thought. The purpose of interdisciplinary teams within healthcare settings is to support clients or patients in the achievement of physiological, psychological, and spiritual health. However, in absence of cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity, the physiological, psychological, and spiritual health needs of clients or patients can go unmet. Hence, it is imperative that interdisciplinary teams seek consultation when team members are unfamiliar with the culture of patients or clients to whom the team is assigned to provide care. Increasing cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity must be a collaborative effort between the interdisciplinary team and the client or patient. Nontraditional interdisciplinary teams conceptually examine teams that impact others in settings outside of education and health care.

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.

Increased demand, limited resources, knowledge gaps, and seemingly less time to produce results are the challenges facing researchers and others in higher education today. Working together across disciplines is almost a requirement to stay afloat in the competitive arena most principal investigators are finding themselves in. This study sought to synthesize existing research on leadership behaviors of these investigators in the agricultural discipline. The sections specifically addressed include team science, discipline structure, boundary work, challenges of interdisciplinary research, the direction of research, and leadership in interdisciplinary teams. After analyzing 32 articles, researchers determined that research should continue to investigate the role of leadership behaviors in primary investigators to continue to improve effectiveness.

This study aims to explore key factors influencing the work of interdisciplinary university research teams of small size.

This is a multiple-case study of four interdisciplinary university research teams of small size in which science and/or engineering was an important component.

Data analysis revealed 17 critical factors classified into five groups. Although some factors were more influential than others, it was rather multiple factors at various levels of analysis, and not a single factor, that influenced the work of research teams. Another important finding was the identified need to develop project management capacity of university researchers. The study also revealed two strategies, conditioned on the availability of funds, that small university research teams use as a way to adapt to situational demands and research opportunities.

Although previous research examined various aspects pertinent to the work of industry research teams and large research groups, empirical research into interdisciplinary university research teams of small size has been limited.

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.

The authors examined team-learning processes in short-term student project teams operating in an intensive design competition at a public university. The purpose of this paper is to explore the critical facilitators, inhibitors and processes for fostering students' creativity within interdisciplinary design teams in higher education.

The authors used a qualitative design to explore facilitators, inhibitors and critical processes in interdisciplinary student project teams. They conducted focus group interviews with three winning interdisciplinary teams that participated in a three-day design competition and used a constant comparison to analyze the data.

The authors identified themes that contributed to creativity at the individual level, the team level and the resource level. The key findings included 12 critical team process phases to achieve one common goal.

The findings of the study yielded to a holistic model of interdisciplinary team development for creativity. Implications for educators and practitioners and suggestions for researchers to expand the interdisciplinary team process model were discussed to facilitate interdisciplinary team creativity in higher education.

The following case study aims to explore management's, health professionals' and patients' experiences on the extent to which there is visibility of management support in achieving effective interdisciplinary team working, which is explicitly declared in the mission statement of a 60-bed acute rehabilitative geriatric hospital in Malta.

A total of 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the above-mentioned key stakeholders.

Three main distinct yet interdependent themes emerged as a result of thematic analysis: “managing a team-friendly hospital”, “interdisciplinary team components”, and “interdisciplinary team processes”. The findings show that visibility of management support and its alignment with the process and content levels of interdisciplinary teamwork are key to integrated care for acute rehabilitative geriatric patients.

The emerging phenomena may not be reproducible in a different context; although many of the emerging themes could be comfortably matched with the existing literature.

The implications are geared towards raising the consciousness and conscientiousness of good practice in interdisciplinary teamwork in hospitals, as well as in emphasizing organizational and management support as crucial factors for team-based organizations.

Interdisciplinary teamwork in acute rehabilitative geriatrics provides optimal quality and integrated health care delivery with the aim that the older persons are successfully discharged back to the community.

The authors draw on solid theoretical frameworks – the complexity theory, team effectiveness model and the social identity theory – to support their major finding, namely the alignment of organizational and management support with intra-team factors at the process and content level.

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.

Integrated transitions of care for rural older persons are key issues in policy and practice. Interdisciplinary partnerships are suggested as ways to improve rural-care transitions by blending complementary skills of disciplines to increase care’s holistic nature. Yet, only multidisciplinary efforts are frequently used in practice and often lack synergy and collaboration. The purpose of this paper is to present a case of a partnership model using nursing, gerontology and public health integration to support rural-residing elders as a part of building an Adult-Gerontology Acute Care Nurse Practitioner program.

This paper uses the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland/O’Sullivan framework to examine the creation of an interdisciplinary team. Two examples of interdisciplinary work are discussed. They are the creation of an interdisciplinary public health course and its team-based on-campus live simulations with a panel and site visit.

With team-building successes and challenges, outcomes show the need for knowledge exchange among practitioners to enhance population-centered and person-centered care to improve health care services to older persons in rural areas.

There is a need to educate providers about the importance of developing interdisciplinary partnerships. Educational programming illustrates ways to move team building through the interdisciplinary continuum. Dependent upon the needs of the community, other similarly integrated partnership models can be developed.

Transitions of care work for older people tends to be multi- or cross-disciplinary. A model for interdisciplinary training of gerontological practitioners in rural and frontier settings broadens the scope of care and improves the health of the rural older persons served.

This paper aims to reveal learning potential in crossing disciplinary boundaries in facilitated workshops by exploring the research goal definition process of interdisciplinary research teams. It uses multilevel boundary crossing as a theoretical framework to illustrate the multilevel nature of team learning mechanisms in interdisciplinary research.

This study uses a qualitative case study approach. The data was collected from semi-structured interviews and collaborative workshops of interdisciplinary researchers. The data analysis is based on pre-existing theory and the process of analysis is both data and theory driven.

The results indicate that although defining interdisciplinary research goals is a complex and demanding task, collaborative and facilitated workshops may support boundary crossing on intrapersonal, interpersonal and institutional levels. The team members efforts in defining their shared research interest revealed dialogical learning mechanisms of identification, coordination, reflection and the first phases of transformation, particularly at the interpersonal level. However, the transformative actions seemed to require intentional team facilitation.

This case study enriches the existing literature and allows better understanding of how team facilitation can promote agenda setting, transformative learning mechanisms and the definition of joint research goals in interdisciplinary settings.