Search results

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 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.

In higher education, interdisciplinarity involves the design of subjects that offer the opportunity to experience ‘different ways of knowing’ from students’ core or preferred disciplines. Such an education is increasingly important in a global knowledge economy. Many universities have begun to introduce interdisciplinary studies or subjects to meet this perceived need. This chapter explores some of the issues inherent in moves towards interdisciplinary higher education. Definitional issues associated with the term ‘academic discipline’, as well as other terms, including ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘cross-disciplinary’, ‘pluridisciplinarity’, ‘transdisciplinarity’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ are examined. A new nomenclature is introduced to assist in clarifying the subtle distinctions between the various positions. The chapter also outlines some of the pedagogical and epistemological considerations which are involved in any move from a conventional form of educational delivery to an interdisciplinary higher education, and recommends caution in any implementation of an interdisciplinary curriculum.

An investigation into the leadership behaviours of academic staff undertaking interdisciplinary research and teaching drew on interviews with 10 senior members of staff at two research institutions, in the United Kingdom and Australia, in order to illuminate the nature of interdisciplinary leadership. Key terms are defined: disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, identity, leadership and learning. A model is developed, based on an analysis of the interview data, drawing on Adair's three-part model of leadership, modified for the context. It is proposed that interdisciplinary leadership can be understood as being at the intersection of identity, discipline and learning, and requiring an understanding of all three for effective practice. The model also includes areas of activity: need and opportunity, co-ordination and direction, communication and motivation. The implications for the support of academic staff in such roles are considered. It is suggested that there is value in conceptualising interdisciplinary leadership as the leading of learning.

Interdisciplinary higher education is becoming more important in learning across subject boundaries. This is occurring in global, national and institutional contexts. In Malaysia, interdisciplinarity is clear in the country's National Higher Education Strategic Plan (2007). While varying interpretations of interdisciplinary learning and teaching exist, there are also commonalities. These common elements address complex problems and focus questions by drawing on the disciplines. They also integrate insights and produce new understandings of complex problems. In this chapter, 21 senior administrators (deans, deputy deans and program chairs) from three public universities in Malaysia were surveyed, and 10 respondents were interviewed to determine their views on their use of the interdisciplinary approach: that is, their level of awareness, their perceptions of interdisciplinarity, and their self-reported level of knowledge of what interdisciplinarity means. The findings showed that 76% of the respondents were aware of interdisciplinarity, and that most respondents had a ‘moderately sufficient’ level of self-reported knowledge about the application of interdisciplinarity in current courses. The interview sessions also revealed that respondents interpreted the interdisciplinary approach in different ways. The implications of the results from this exploratory study suggest that public universities in Malaysia have various obstacles to deal with before effective interdisciplinary learning and teaching can be implemented.

Formal programmes designed to develop university teaching and learning are often assumed to be spaces for interdisciplinary learning and exchange. Because such programmes bring together academics from a range of different disciplines to learn about university teaching and learning as an academic development activity, it would seem feasible to argue that these spaces for learning, and the learning which results from them, can be characterised as ‘interdisciplinary’. Academic development itself is often thought to be a project that fosters an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. This chapter offers a narrative of the way academic development programmes support academics to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to their learning about university teaching and learning. We take graduate certificate programmes in university teaching and learning as the vehicle for our analysis. In doing so, the chapter makes three points. First, that academic development has the potential to be a ‘critical interdisciplinary space’. Second, that it is important for academics to see and experience the Graduate Certificate as an opportunity to develop interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The evidence at present reveals that interdisciplinary learning outcomes for academics feature more as an absent-presence rather than as a conscious decision about curriculum design. Third, the curriculum of graduate certificate programmes needs to have a coherent and theorised account of interdisciplinary teaching and learning embedded in the philosophy and approach of the course.

Interdisciplinary research allows us to broaden our sights and expand our theories. Yet, such research surfaces a number of challenges. We highlight three issues – superficiality, lack of focus, and consilience - and discuss how they can be addressed in interdisciplinary research. In particular, we focus on the implications for interdisciplinary work with paradox scholarship. We explore how these issues can be navigated as scholars bring together different epistemologies, ontologies and methodologies within interdisciplinary research, and illustrate our key points by drawing on extant work in paradox theory and on examples from this double volume. Our paper contributes to paradox scholarship, and to organizational theory more broadly, by offering practices about how to implement interdisciplinary research while also advancing our understanding about available research methods.

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.

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.

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.