IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v15y2006i1p5-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: issues in assessing interdisciplinary research

Author

Listed:
  • Irwin Feller

Abstract

The question of how to assess interdisciplinary research is made more complex by the existence of multiple actors making multiple decisions in multiple organizational settings. These settings include government officials charged with allocating or evaluating public expenditures in political environments increasingly demanding measures of accountability and performance; academic and laboratory administrators engaged in choosing among fields of science and modes of research organization; and researchers engaged in evaluating proposal and manuscript submissions within and across disciplines. Drawing on observations from the United States, the paper describes the interaction among these multiple but linked sets of decisions and decision makers, pointing to the existence of multiple, context-dependent measures of the quality of interdisciplinary research. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Irwin Feller, 2006. "Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: issues in assessing interdisciplinary research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 5-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:15:y:2006:i:1:p:5-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154406781776020
    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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesco Giovanni Avallone & Alberto Quagli & Paola Ramassa, 2022. "Interdisciplinary research by accounting scholars: An exploratory study," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2022(2), pages 5-34.
    2. Gaëlle Vallée-Tourangeau & Ana Wheelock & Tushna Vandrevala & Priscilla Harries, 2022. "Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Whalen, Ryan, 2018. "Boundary spanning innovation and the patent system: Interdisciplinary challenges for a specialized examination system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1334-1343.
    4. 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.
    5. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    6. Mario De Marchi, 2013. "Interdisciplinary research: measurement and assessment indicators," CERIS Working Paper 201306, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    7. Jovana Janinovic & Sanja Pekovic & Dijana Vuckovic & Stevo Popovic & Rajka Djokovic & Mirjana Pejiæ Bach, 2020. "Innovative strategies for creating and assessing research quality and societal impact in social sciences and humanities," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 18(4), pages 449-458.
    8. 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.
    9. Chams, Nour & Guesmi, Bouali & Gil, Jose M. & Molins, Mireia & Cubel, Rosa, 2021. "Between “Research Producers” and “Research Adopters”: The Role of Knowledge and Innovation Transfer on Sustainability Impact," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315264, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Irwin Feller, 2013. "Peer review and expert panels as techniques for evaluating the quality of academic research," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 5, pages 115-142, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Carr, Gemma & Loucks, Daniel P. & Blöschl, Günter, 2018. "Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: A framework for evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 35-48.
    13. Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2011. "Looking across communicative genres: a call for inclusive indicators of interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 449-461, February.
    14. Stina Hansson & Merritt Polk, 2018. "Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 132-144.
    15. 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.

    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:15:y:2006:i:1:p:5-15. 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.