Due to investments in interdisciplinary research endeavors, the number and variety of interdisciplinary research centers have grown exponentially during the past decades. While interdisciplinary research centers rely on varied organizational arrangements, we know little about the conditions and processes that mediate collaborative arrangements and interdisciplinary research outcomes. This study examines how different collaborative arrangements shape scholars' experiences of interdisciplinary research and understandings of interdisciplinary knowledge culminations in the context of university-based research centers. We conducted three indepth qualitative case studies on different centers, which recruited researchers from natural sciences, medicine, and social sciences. We refer to them as the Biotech Center, the Environmental Center, and the Premature Birth Center. Our analysis of 53 interviews with interdisciplinary scholars across the three centers demonstrates that the scholars perceive particular features of the centers' collaborative arrangements as meaningful for interdisciplinary collaboration. Specifically, the center's mission, physical architecture, and leadership and task structure were seen as affecting scholars' motivation, interaction, and inclusion in the centers, which then shaped the interdisciplinary knowledge culminations. At the Biotech Center, knowledge was This article is dedicated to our friend, colleague, and coauthor, Eliza D. Evans, who passed away before seeing our work in print. We miss her and cherish her memory.
This study examines the tension between the academic evaluation system and the development of unconventional research agendas. While scholars have studied the evaluation of research that crosses disciplinary boundaries from the perspective of peer reviewers, they have paid comparatively little attention to the experiences of the performers of unconventional science. This study asks how researchers develop unconventional research agendas to address a long-standing health problem and, in the process, make sense of the actions of a site visit committee organized to advise a foundation funding the project. This study develops a process narrative on the development of a specific transdisciplinary team proposing to study premature birth. The findings show that when the performers and the evaluators of unconventional science developed competing understandings of the research agenda, transdisciplinary discovery became limited as a particular research topic became taboo. Yet, the study also reveals how the performers of unconventional science challenged the power of the site visit committee by making it seem as though they followed the committee’s decisions. These findings raise questions about the role of private foundations as funders of academic research and the suitability of traditional evaluation procedures for assessing transdisciplinary discovery.
Knowledge co-creation at the boundaries of communities of practice (CoPs) can lead to heightened tensions and power struggles. This study examines how power struggles among CoPs can begin to structure knowledge creation processes. Drawing on a qualitative case study of a new medical research project, the study shows how power and knowledge negotiations became manifested through conflicting discursive positioning and coercive power affecting knowledge co-creation efforts. One CoP adopted an authoritative leader role, prioritized their own problem definition and knowledge creation process, and engaged in the peripheralization of other CoPs. The power and discursive moves prevented the development of shared problems and interconnected practices contributing to epistemological suspicion among the participating CoPs. The study offers new insights to research on power dynamics in situated learning and knowing by problematizing the relationship between localized practices and emerging interconnected practices, by shedding light on how discursive positioning and coercive power operate together, and by developing peripheralization and epistemological suspicion as potential explanations for how and why knowledge workers struggle to act on opportunities for knowledge co-creation.
Aim/Purpose: Given that leadership has been shown to play a key role in knowledge-producing organizations, leaders of transdisciplinary science have received surprisingly little empirical attention. This study addresses the research gap by examining leadership in the context of a new transdisciplinary research organization. Background: Drawing on complexity leadership theory—a framework developed for identifying behaviors that facilitate creativity, learning, and adaptability in complex adaptive systems—this study examines leadership roles and practices that affect the generation of adaptive dynamics in transdisciplinary science. Methodology: The study is based on a longitudinal, qualitative in-depth case study on a newly formed transdisciplinary research center and its leadership team. The data includes ethnographic observations from leadership meetings and interviews with leaders. Contribution: This unique empirical case contributes to the study of transdisciplinary science by shedding light on the actions of academic leaders as they try to support transdisciplinary conversation, learning, and collaboration in a new center. Findings: The analysis shows that the leaders relied on both enabling and administrative leadership practices in a way that made them the focal point of transdisciplinary knowledge integration and thus jeopardized the creation of adaptive dynamics throughout the organization. Recommendations for Practitioners: The study highlights the importance of having knowledge brokers and hybrid scholars in strategic positions at different levels of the transdisciplinary research organization already in its early stages. Recommendation for Researchers: Longitudinal qualitative case studies that rely on different types of data provide rich information on how new leadership conceptualizations are implemented in organizations and the complex ways in which they relate to knowledge creation processes and outcomes. Impact on Society: Transdisciplinary science has the potential to find cures to complex diseases. Understanding leadership in transdisciplinary science can help in maintaining transdisciplinary research activities in the long run and thus make it more impactful. Future Research: The use of leadership roles and practices will be examined at different developmental stages in the transdisciplinary research process.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.