IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i2p2158244015586237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines

Author

Listed:
  • Shannon M. Donovan
  • Michael O’Rourke
  • Chris Looney

Abstract

Cross-disciplinary research (CDR) is a necessary response to many current pressing problems, yet CDR practitioners face diverse research challenges. Communication challenges can limit a CDR team’s ability to collaborate effectively, including differing use of scientific terms among teammates. To illustrate this, we examine the conceptual complexity and cross-disciplinary ambiguity of the term hypothesis as it is used by researchers participating in 16 team building workshops. These workshops assist CDR teams in finding common ground about fundamental research assumptions through philosophically structured dialogue. Our results show that team members often have very different perceptions about the nature of hypotheses, the role of hypotheses in science, and the use of hypotheses within different disciplines. Furthermore, we find that such assumptions can be rooted in disciplinary-based training. These data indicate that potentially problematic terminological differences exist within CDR teams, and exercises that reveal this early in the collaborative process may be beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015586237
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015586237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015586237
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015586237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons & Isabel Gómez, 2001. "An approach to interdisciplinarity through bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 203-222, April.
    3. Mariella Marzano & David N. Carss & Sandra Bell, 2006. "Working to Make Interdisciplinarity Work: Investing in Communication and Interpersonal Relationships," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 185-197, July.
    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. Shiji Chen & Clément Arsenault & Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1307-1323, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Cricelli, Livio & Mauriello, Roberto & Strazzullo, Serena, 2023. "Preventing open innovation failures: A managerial framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Shiji Chen & Yanhui Song & Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2022. "Interdisciplinarity and impact: the effects of the citation time window," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2621-2642, May.
    5. C. Hinrichs, 2008. "Interdisciplinarity and boundary work: challenges and opportunities for agrifood studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(2), pages 209-213, June.
    6. Yuxian Liu & Yishan Wu & Sandra Rousseau & Ronald Rousseau, 2020. "Reflections on and a short review of the science of team science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 937-950, November.
    7. Jane Wardani & Joannette J. (Annette) Bos & Diego Ramirez‐Lovering & Anthony G. Capon, 2022. "Enabling transdisciplinary research collaboration for planetary health: Insights from practice at the environment‐health‐development nexus," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 375-392, April.
    8. Alan MacLeod & Glyn D. Jones & Helen M. Anderson & Rick A. Mumford, 2016. "Plant health and food security, linking science, economics, policy and industry," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 17-25, February.
    9. Elise Bassecoulard & Alain Lelu & Michel Zitt, 2007. "Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 859-880, March.
    10. Zhichao Ba & Yujie Cao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2019. "A hierarchical approach to analyzing knowledge integration between two fields—a case study on medical informatics and computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1455-1486, June.
    11. Cristina Gomes Souza & Marta Lúcia Azevedo Ferreira, 2013. "Researchers profile, co-authorship pattern and knowledge organization in information science in Brazil," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 673-687, May.
    12. 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.
    13. Wagner, Caroline S. & Roessner, J. David & Bobb, Kamau & Klein, Julie Thompson & Boyack, Kevin W. & Keyton, Joann & Rafols, Ismael & Börner, Katy, 2011. "Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 14-26.
    14. Mund, Carolin & Neuhäusler, Peter, 2015. "Towards an early-stage identification of emerging topics in science—The usability of bibliometric characteristics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 1018-1033.
    15. 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.
    16. Qiuju Zhou & Ronald Rousseau & Liying Yang & Ting Yue & Guoliang Yang, 2012. "A general framework for describing diversity within systems and similarity between systems with applications in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(3), pages 787-812, December.
    17. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.
    18. Alfonso Ávila-Robinson & Cristian Mejia & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7477-7502, September.
    19. Alexandre Truc & Olivier Santerre & Yves Gingras & François Claveau, 2023. "The interdisciplinarity of economics," Post-Print hal-04719259, HAL.
    20. Tanmoy Chakraborty, 2018. "Role of interdisciplinarity in computer sciences: quantification, impact and life trajectory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1011-1029, March.

    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:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015586237. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.