IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i2p213-227..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pathway profiles: Learning from five main approaches to assessing interdisciplinarity

Author

Listed:
  • Bethany K
  • Nicole Motzer
  • Kelly J

Abstract

Monitoring and evaluating interdisciplinarity is crucial for informing decisions about interdisciplinary (ID) policies, funding, and work. Yet, the recent explosion of ID assessment approaches represents an overwhelming buffet of options that has produced little consensus, limited guidance, and minimal insights into interdisciplinarity and its value to society. This article extends findings from a companion study that systematically reviewed the ID assessment field from 2000 to 2019. Engaging with the same extensive dataset but in a new way, we employ typological analysis and condense 1,006 published assessment designs into just five main assessment approaches called Pathway Profiles. We then tailor assessment guidance to each Pathway Profile, including potential settings in which each could be most useful and ways each could be modified to reduce challenges and increase rigor. Our goal in defining and interacting with the core of the ID assessment field in this way is not only to clarify activity in this vast and disjointed space but also to simplify and facilitate processes of understanding, choosing from, and strategically developing this diverse landscape. Pathway Profiles can be used as heuristic gateways to the ID assessment field, particularly when it comes to finding relevant examples, adapting designs to situations, and ultimately uncovering the true outcomes of interdisciplinarity.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:213-227.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvac036
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Roland Barthel & Roman Seidl, 2017. "Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Natural and Social Sciences – Status and Trends Exemplified in Groundwater Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Leah G. Nichols, 2014. "A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(3), pages 741-754, September.
    4. Veronica Boix Mansilla & Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh & Christopher R. Wolfe & Carolyn Haynes, 2009. "Targeted Assessment Rubric: An Empirically Grounded Rubric for Interdisciplinary Writing," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 80(3), pages 334-353, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. E. Jane Davidson, 2014. "Evaluative Reasoning: Methodological Briefs - Impact Evaluation No. 4," Papers innpub749, Methodological Briefs.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:213-227. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Oviedo-García, M. Ángeles, 2016. "Tourism research quality: Reviewing and assessing interdisciplinarity," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 586-592.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere, 2022. "Various aspects of interdisciplinarity in research and how to quantify and measure those," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5551-5569, September.
    8. Juste Raimbault, 2019. "Exploration of an interdisciplinary scientific landscape," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 617-641, May.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Jian Xu & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Sinan Yang & Hongli Zhang & Chen Yu & Lin Sun, 2018. "Understanding the formation of interdisciplinary research from the perspective of keyword evolution: a case study on joint attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 973-995, November.
    13. Edmond Daramy-Williams & Jillian Anable & Susan Grant-Muller, 2019. "Car Use: Intentional, Habitual, or Both? Insights from Anscombe and the Mobility Biography Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Núria Bautista-Puig & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Antonio Eleazar Serrano-López, 2021. "Role taxonomy of green and sustainable science and technology journals: exportation, importation, specialization and interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3871-3892, May.
    15. Paul Stock & Rob J.F. Burton, 2011. "Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-24, July.
    16. Rose McKenney & Kevin O’Brien & Brian Naasz & William Teska, 2011. "Using an environmental studies capstone to solidify and assess the integration of interdisciplinary learning at Pacific Lutheran University," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 194-200, September.
    17. Meijun Liu & Sijie Yang & Yi Bu & Ning Zhang, 2023. "Female early-career scientists have conducted less interdisciplinary research in the past six decades: evidence from doctoral theses," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2012. "Identifying interdisciplinarity through the disciplinary classification of coauthors of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2206-2222, November.
    19. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    20. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    21. Ingyu Oh & Kyeong-Jun Kim & Chris Rowley, 2023. "Female Empowerment and Radical Empathy for the Sustainability of Creative Industries: The Case of K-Pop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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:32:y:2023:i:2:p:213-227.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.