Julie Thompson Klein

Interdisciplinarity : history, theory, and practice

In this volume, Julie Klein provides the first comprehensive study of the modern concept of interdisciplinarity, supplementing her discussion with the most complete bibliography yet compiled on the subject. Spanning the social sciences, natural sciences, humanities, and professions, her study is a synthesis of existing scholarship on interdisciplinary research, education and health care. Klein argues that any interdisciplinary activity embodies a complex network of historical, social, psychological, political, economic, philosophical, and intellectual factors. Whether the context is a short-ranged instrumentality or a long-range reconceptualization of the way we know and learn, the concept of interdisciplinarity is an important means of solving problems and answering questions that cannot be satisfactorily addressed using singular methods or approaches.

Crossing boundaries : knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities

Boundary work studies examine how boundaries of knowledge are formed, maintained, broken down and reconfigured. This text investigates the claims, activities and institutional structures that define and legitimate interdisciplinary practices.

Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature

Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) extends and challenges the study of science on a number of fronts, including creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature review began with a narrow search for quantitative measures of the output of IDR that could contribute to indicators, but the authors expanded the scope of the review as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on different aspects of IDR. Key among these broader aspects is (a) the importance of incorporating the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that integration can occur within a single mind as well as among a team. Existing output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, co-inventors, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding of the social dynamics that lead to knowledge integration. Emerging measures in network dynamics (particularly betweenness centrality and diversity), and entropy are promising as indicators, but their use requires sophisticated interpretations. Combinations of quantitative measures and qualitative assessments being applied within evaluation studies appear to reveal IDR processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility year-upon-year. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR, although research and development is needed before metrics can adequately reflect the actual phenomenon of IDR.

Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Literature Review

Interdisciplinarity has become a widespread mantra for research, accompanied by a growing body of publications. Evaluation, however, remains one of the least-understood aspects. This review of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation categorizes lessons from the emergent international literature on the topic reviewed in 2007. It defines parallels between research performance and evaluation, presents seven generic principles for evaluation, and reflects in the conclusion on changing connotations of the underlying concepts of discipline, peer, and measurement. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research performance and evaluation are both generative processes of harvesting, capitalizing, and leveraging multiple expertise. Individual standards must be calibrated, and tensions among different disciplinary, professional, and interdisciplinary approaches carefully managed in balancing acts that require negotiation and compromise. Readiness levels are strengthened by antecedent conditions that are flexible enough to allow multiple pathways of integration and collaboration. In both cases, as well, new epistemic communities must be constructed and new cultures of evidence produced. The multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary-transdisciplinary research environment spans a wide range of contexts. Yet seven generic principles provide a coherent framework for thinking about evaluation: (1) variability of goals; (2) variability of criteria and indicators; (3) leveraging of integration; (4) interaction of social and cognitive factors in collaboration; (5) management, leadership, and coaching; (6) iteration in a comprehensive and transparent system; and (7) effectiveness and impact.

Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science

An increase in cross-disciplinary, collaborative team science initiatives over the last few decades has spurred interest by multiple stakeholder groups in empirical research on scientific teams, giving rise to an emergent field referred to as the science of team science (SciTS). This study employed a collaborative team science concept-mapping evaluation methodology to develop a comprehensive research agenda for the SciTS field. Its integrative mixed-methods approach combined group process with statistical analysis to derive a conceptual framework that identifies research areas of team science and their relative importance to the emerging SciTS field. The findings from this concept-mapping project constitute a lever for moving SciTS forward at theoretical, empirical, and translational levels.

Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation

The complexity of evaluating interdisciplinary (ID) and transdisciplinary (TD) research defies a single standard. Yet, common elements appear in the emergent literature. Five overriding themes stand out. (1) Quality is a relative concept, driven by variability of goals and criteria. (2) A coaching model of evaluation nurtures the research process. (3) Integration is central to the process. (4) Social and cognitive factors interact, requiring management of information and decision-making. (5) The need for change in peer review has led to a variety of strategies. ID and TD evaluation is a generative activity that entails acts of “capitalizing” and “harvesting” expertise while “calibrating” standards to produce new “cultures of evidence”. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research

Interdisciplinarity has become a widespread mantra for research, accompanied by a growing body of publications. Evaluation, however, remains one of the least-understood aspects. This review of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation categorizes lessons from the emergent international literature on the topic reviewed in 2007. It defines parallels between research performance and evaluation, presents seven generic principles for evaluation, and reflects in the conclusion on changing connotations of the underlying concepts of discipline, peer, and measurement. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research performance and evaluation are both generative processes of harvesting, capitalizing, and leveraging multiple expertise. Individual standards must be calibrated, and tensions among different disciplinary, professional, and interdisciplinary approaches carefully managed in balancing acts that require negotiation and compromise. Readiness levels are strengthened by antecedent conditions that are flexible enough to allow multiple pathways of integration and collaboration. In both cases, as well, new epistemic communities must be constructed and new cultures of evidence produced. The multidisciplinary-interdisciplinary-transdisciplinary research environment spans a wide range of contexts. Yet seven generic principles provide a coherent framework for thinking about evaluation: (1) variability of goals; (2) variability of criteria and indicators; (3) leveraging of integration; (4) interaction of social and cognitive factors in collaboration; (5) management, leadership, and coaching; (6) iteration in a comprehensive and transparent system; and (7) effectiveness and impact.

The team science toolkit

Introduction Research teams, ranging from pairs of collaborators to large networks, are becoming the dominant paradigm in knowledge production. Across all research fields, teams now produce more frequently cited and higher impact research than individual authors. This trend—known as “team science” or “team-based research”—has emerged as a strategy to address increasingly complex scientific problems, often by applying sophisticated conceptual and methodologic approaches that draw on multiple disciplines, fields, and professions. Science teams bring together collaborators with a combined set of expertise that is uniquely suited to address particular scientific problems in innovative and effective ways. These specialized teams may be large in size; may include collaborators distributed across geographic space and organizational boundaries and with expertise that spans multiple disciplines, fields, and professions; and may involve academic, community, and translational partners. These complexities contribute to the potential added value

Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration

This quasiexperimental study investigated interdisciplinary collaboration over a 16-month period on units using different collaborative practice strategies. Measures of collaboration and perceived physician involvement in collaborative practice were completed by 335 licensed staff members working on seven general adult units in an acute care hospital located in an academic medical center. Data were collected at two time points: in 1993 and 1995. A small but statistically significant decline in collaboration was found (p = 0.01) over the 16-month period. Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference (p = 0.03) in collaboration related to the method used to develop collaborative paths. Post hoc Tukeys test indicated that the presence of a case manager without collaborative paths did show higher levels of collaboration (p = 0.05). Regardless of the strategy used, perceived high physician involvement was related to greater collaboration than perceived low involvement with differences increasing over time (p = 0.02). These findings suggest the importance of perceived physician involvement in collaborative practice to interdisciplinary collaboration.

Editorials and CommentaryThe Team Science Toolkit: Enhancing Research Collaboration Through Online Knowledge Sharing

Introduction Research teams, ranging from pairs of collaborators to large networks, are becoming the dominant paradigm in knowledge production. Across all research fields, teams now produce more frequently cited and higher impact research than individual authors. This trend—known as “team science” or “team-based research”—has emerged as a strategy to address increasingly complex scientific problems, often by applying sophisticated conceptual and methodologic approaches that draw on multiple disciplines, fields, and professions. Science teams bring together collaborators with a combined set of expertise that is uniquely suited to address particular scientific problems in innovative and effective ways. These specialized teams may be large in size; may include collaborators distributed across geographic space and organizational boundaries and with expertise that spans multiple disciplines, fields, and professions; and may involve academic, community, and translational partners. These complexities contribute to the potential added value