Researcher experiences in practice-based interdisciplinary research

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Research Evaluation Pub Date : 2021-05-17 DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvab018
J. Leigh, N. Brown
{"title":"Researcher experiences in practice-based interdisciplinary research","authors":"J. Leigh, N. Brown","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvab018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article reports on a study that followed up on an initial interdisciplinary project and focused specifically on the experiences of researchers involved in practice-based interdisciplinary research. We share an approach to research evaluation that focuses on the experiences of those conducting the research rather than the outputs. The study allowed those involved in the initial successful project to reflect post hoc on their experiences. We show that neglecting fundamental conceptions about how the research is conceptualized can lead to challenges with the research itself. In addition to alternative understandings of research and concepts, practical and logistical issues, whilst seeming trivial, feed into communication issues such as misunderstanding of terms and language. We argue that tensions and confusions around the very nature of the research—what was being researched, and what was valued as research, epistemological differences between the disciplinary perspectives—need to be explored and interrogated in order to maximize the benefits of interdisciplinary research. We conclude with considerations of the relationship between interdisciplinary research in a team and identity work of team members, and the implications this may have for research design, an area of research evaluation that certainly needs further exploration.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This article reports on a study that followed up on an initial interdisciplinary project and focused specifically on the experiences of researchers involved in practice-based interdisciplinary research. We share an approach to research evaluation that focuses on the experiences of those conducting the research rather than the outputs. The study allowed those involved in the initial successful project to reflect post hoc on their experiences. We show that neglecting fundamental conceptions about how the research is conceptualized can lead to challenges with the research itself. In addition to alternative understandings of research and concepts, practical and logistical issues, whilst seeming trivial, feed into communication issues such as misunderstanding of terms and language. We argue that tensions and confusions around the very nature of the research—what was being researched, and what was valued as research, epistemological differences between the disciplinary perspectives—need to be explored and interrogated in order to maximize the benefits of interdisciplinary research. We conclude with considerations of the relationship between interdisciplinary research in a team and identity work of team members, and the implications this may have for research design, an area of research evaluation that certainly needs further exploration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
具有跨学科实践研究经验
本文报告了一项研究,该研究跟踪了最初的跨学科项目,并特别关注了参与基于实践的跨学科研究的研究人员的经验。我们分享了一种研究评估方法,侧重于进行研究的人的经验,而不是产出。这项研究允许那些参与最初成功项目的人事后反思他们的经历。我们表明,忽视关于研究如何概念化的基本概念可能导致研究本身的挑战。除了对研究和概念的不同理解,实践和逻辑问题,虽然看起来微不足道,但会导致术语和语言的误解等交流问题。我们认为,为了最大限度地发挥跨学科研究的好处,需要探索和询问围绕研究本质的紧张和混乱——正在研究的是什么,被视为研究的是什么,学科观点之间的认识论差异。最后,我们考虑了团队中跨学科研究与团队成员身份工作之间的关系,以及这可能对研究设计的影响,这是一个需要进一步探索的研究评估领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Methods for measuring social and conceptual dimensions of convergence science Correction to: Stated preference methods and STI policy studies: a foreground approach A tribute to our dearly departed colleague and friend: An introduction to the Special Issue in memory of Prof. Paul Benneworth The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy The conflict of impact for early career researchers planning for a future in the academy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1