IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i1p17-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration

Author

Listed:
  • Veronica Boix Mansilla

Abstract

How does one ascertain the quality of interdisciplinary work, when criteria from individual disciplines do not suffice? Assessment is one of the most important and least understood aspects of interdisciplinary research. An empirical study of interdisciplinary work in five established research institutions, reveals that experts prioritize peer review, journal prestige, citation patterns, and successful patent filing, as indicators of quality interdisciplinary work, while also viewing these indicators with skepticism. Three epistemic criteria to assess interdisciplinary work are revealed: (1) the degree to which new insights relate to antecedent disciplinary knowledge in multiple disciplines involved, (2) the sensible balance reached in weaving disciplinary perspectives together, and (3) the effectiveness with which the integration of disciplines advances understanding and inquiry. These criteria may inform the task of reviewers and evaluators of interdisciplinary research outcomes by attending to some of the unique epistemic demands that this type of work presents. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronica Boix Mansilla, 2006. "Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 17-29, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:17-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781776075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Flurina Schneider & Zarina Patel & Katsia Paulavets & Tobias Buser & Jacqueline Kado & Stefanie Burkhart, 2023. "Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Linden E Higgins & Julia M Smith, 2022. "Documenting development of interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers by visualizing connections," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 159-172.
    4. Jennifer Leigh & Nicole Brown, 2021. "Researcher experiences in practice-based interdisciplinary research [Imagining Autism: Feasibility and Impact of a Drama-Based Intervention on the Social Communicative and Imaginative Behaviour of ," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 421-430.
    5. Lin Zhang & Ziyi Tu & Yifei Yu & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang, 2024. "Spotting potential reviewers for interdisciplinary research: insights on active reviewers from Publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5533-5556, September.
    6. Cornelia Fischer & Verena Radinger-Peer & Larissa Krainer & Marianne Penker, 2024. "Communication tools and their support for integration in transdisciplinary research projects," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:213-227. is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Cian O’Donovan & Aleksandra (Ola) Michalec & Joshua R Moon, 2022. "Capabilities for transdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 145-158.
    9. Ahmed Sabab Sharek & Kalim U. Shah, 2021. "Tracking the quality of scientific knowledge inputs in reports generated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 586-594, December.
    10. Arnold, Austin & Cafer, Anne & Green, John & Haines, Seena & Mann, Georgianna & Rosenthal, Meagen, 2021. "“Perspective: Promoting and fostering multidisciplinary research in universities”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    11. Bethany K Laursen & Nicole Motzer & Kelly J Anderson, 2022. "Pathways for assessing interdisciplinarity: A systematic review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 326-343.
    12. Bethany K & Nicole Motzer & Kelly J, 2023. "Pathway profiles: Learning from five main approaches to assessing interdisciplinarity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 213-227.
    13. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    14. Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles, 2016. "Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 586-592.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:17-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.