IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v20y2011i4p283-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promoting interdisciplinarity in the life sciences: a case study

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Baumwol
  • Sharon T Mortimer
  • Timothy R Huerta
  • Cameron D Norman
  • Alison M J Buchan

Abstract

Increasingly funders of life sciences research are promoting large interdisciplinary teams in order to address complex problems. This creates a dissonance with academic institutions that value and reward faculty members based on their independence. We have taken advantage of a natural experiment, the formation of a new life sciences institute, to evaluate research faculty attitudes towards interdisciplinary research. The majority of faculty surveyed engaged in interdisciplinary research; however they do not believe that it is supported or recognized by the university. These findings contrast with significant resistance to the new interdisciplinary organization from departments and faculty during the planning stages. Evaluating the impact of the new institute demonstrated that although the output (number of publications) did not change after the move the complexity of inter-departmental co-authorship patterns increased significantly. These data indicate that the intent of the new organizational structure to promote interdisciplinary research was becoming a reality. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Baumwol & Sharon T Mortimer & Timothy R Huerta & Cameron D Norman & Alison M J Buchan, 2011. "Promoting interdisciplinarity in the life sciences: a case study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 283-292, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:283-292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820211X13118583635990
    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.

    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:20:y:2011:i:4:p:283-292. 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.