IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i1p75-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Julie Thompson Klein

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie Thompson Klein, 2006. "Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 75-80, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:75-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781776011
    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. Marco Pautasso, 2010. "Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 193-202, October.
    2. Adriana Zaiț & Constantin Bratianu & Elena‐Mădălina Vătămănescu & Andreia Gabriela Andrei & Ioana Alexandra Horodnic, 2021. "Interdisciplinarity: A complexity approach towards academic research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 294-306, May.
    3. Roberto Lopez-Olmedo & Norma Georgina Gutierrez-Serrano, 2021. "Transdisciplinary knowledge production in mainstream journals: from the perspective of the participation of social actors in Mexico," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2627-2641, March.
    4. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    5. Eileen Piggot-Irvine & Deborah Zornes, 2016. "Developing a Framework for Research Evaluation in Complex Contexts Such as Action Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    6. Carr, Gemma & Loucks, Daniel P. & Blöschl, Günter, 2018. "Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: A framework for evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 35-48.
    7. Shannon M. Donovan & Michael O’Rourke & Chris Looney, 2015. "Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, May.
    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. Chen Liu & Wei Shan & Jing Yu, 2011. "Shaping the interdisciplinary knowledge network of China: a network analysis based on citation data from 1981 to 2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 89-106, October.
    10. Costanza, Robert & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2012. "The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 16-25.
    11. Huutoniemi, Katri & Klein, Julie Thompson & Bruun, Henrik & Hukkinen, Janne, 2010. "Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 79-88, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles, 2016. "Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 586-592.
    14. Gotsche, Caroline I & Weishaar, Heide & Hanefeld, Johanna, 2023. "Global health in Germany: Understanding interdisciplinarity in the academic sector," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).

    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:75-80. 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.