IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i1p69-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education

Author

Listed:
  • Veronica Boix Mansilla
  • Irwin Feller
  • Howard Gardner

Abstract

Growth of interdisciplinary research and education is accompanied by uncertainty about how to evaluate interdisciplinary work. What constitute indicators of quality that distinguish the exemplary from the mundane? What research evaluation processes are most appropriate when disciplinary standards do not suffice? To advance the discussion of quality assessment, researchers from Harvard University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science convened a select group of leading research administration (eg National Institutes of Health, Duke University), science journal editors (eg Physics Review) and social scientists, to share innovative practices and empirical results. Core insights are here summarized. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronica Boix Mansilla & Irwin Feller & Howard Gardner, 2006. "Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 69-74, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:69-74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781776057
    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. 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.
    2. Jovana Janinovic & Sanja Pekovic & Dijana Vuckovic & Stevo Popovic & Rajka Djokovic & Mirjana Pejiæ Bach, 2020. "Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 18(4), pages 449-458.
    3. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:213-227. is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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).
    5. Shunshun Shi & Wenyu Zhang & Shuai Zhang & Jie Chen, 2018. "Does prestige dimension influence the interdisciplinary performance of scientific entities in knowledge flow? Evidence from the e-government field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1237-1264, November.
    6. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Nicola Melluso & Francesco Alessandro Massucci, 2022. "Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6961-6991, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Sabine Hoffmann & Lisa Deutsch & Julie Thompson Klein & Michael O’Rourke, 2022. "Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Marco Seeber & Jef Vlegels & Mattia Cattaneo, 2022. "Conditions that do or do not disadvantage interdisciplinary research proposals in project evaluation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1106-1126, August.
    10. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. 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:69-74. 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.