IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0235-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Overcoming disciplinary divides in higher education: the case of agricultural economics

Author

Listed:
  • Desmond Ng

    (Texas A&M University)

  • Kerry Litzenberg

    (Texas A&M University)

Abstract

As global problems have become ever more complex, the production and organization of knowledge in society is increasingly based on the sharing, integration and collaboration of diverse experiences. For instance, global ‘grand challenges’, such as world hunger, poverty, climate change, and sustainability often require an interdisciplinary (ID) approach, in which integrating the insights of different disciplines provides a more comprehensive solution than can be offered by any given discipline. Universities or higher educational institutions face increasing pressures to engage in such interdisciplinary collaboration. This interdisciplinarity, however, raises particular organizational challenges to departments in higher educational institutions. In particular, while departments have been traditionally organized around a disciplinary core, interdisciplinarity has placed increasing pressures on departments, such as agricultural economics, to integrate insights from disciplines that do not advance a department’s disciplinary core. Few ID researchers have addressed the issue of how this internal conflict can be resolved in a departmental setting. Resolving this internal conflict is important to developing a greater interdisciplinarity among the disciplines of departmental units where a greater variety of disciplinary insights can be drawn upon to solve complex social problems. Here, we call for a unique organizational structure that can resolve this internal conflict. In using agricultural economics departments as a case study, we appeal to a concept of a “gatekeeper” whose role is to institute “loosely coupled” connections that can reconcile a department’s internal conflicts. This “gatekeeper” can advance the “normal science” of a department’s core and peripheral disciplines, while at the same time support a ‘common ground’ that appeals to these disciplines’ common interests. A key conclusion is that “gatekeepers” can sustain the integration of disciplinary insights necessary for the advancement of interdisciplinarity in higher educational institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Desmond Ng & Kerry Litzenberg, 2019. "Overcoming disciplinary divides in higher education: the case of agricultural economics," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0235-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0235-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0235-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0235-8?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
    ---><---

    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. Steven T. Sonka & Michael A. Hudson, 1989. "Why agribusiness anyway?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(4), pages 305-314.
    2. Cook, Michael L. & Chaddad, Fabio R., 2000. "Agroindustrialization of the global agrifood economy: bridging development economics and agribusiness research," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 207-218, September.
    3. Desmond Ng & Randall Westgren & Steven Sonka, 2009. "Competitive blind spots in an institutional field," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 349-369, April.
    4. Jill E. Hobbs & Siân Mooney, 2016. "Applications of Behavioral and Experimental Economics to Decision Making in the Agricultural, Food, and Resource Sectors: An Introduction," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 593-597, December.
    5. David Budtz Pedersen, 2016. "Integrating social sciences and humanities in interdisciplinary research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 2(1), pages 1-7, December.
    6. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    7. Gabriele Bammer, 2017. "Should we discipline interdisciplinarity?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(1), pages 1-4, December.
    8. Sandra S. Batie, 2008. "Wicked Problems and Applied Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1176-1191.
    9. Christiana E. Hilmer & Michael J. Hilmer, 2005. "How Do Journal Quality, Co-Authorship, and Author Order Affect Agricultural Economists' Salaries?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 509-523.
    10. Debertin, David L. & Luzar, E. Jane & Chambers, Orlando D., 1995. "A Protocol Or A Set Of Standards To Guide Agricultural Economics Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    12. Kenneth F. Harling, 1995. "Differing perspectives on agribusiness management," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 501-511.
    13. William R. Carter, 2015. "Ambidexterity deconstructed: a hierarchy of capabilities perspective," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 38(8), pages 794-812, August.
    14. Mooney, Sian & Young, Douglas & Cobourn, Kelly & Islam, Samia, 2013. "Multidisciplinary Research: Implications for Agricultural and Applied Economists," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Robert P. King & Michael Boehlje & Michael L. Cook & Steven T. Sonka, 2010. "Agribusiness Economics and Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 554-570.
    16. Erwin Danneels, 2003. "Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 559-576, June.
    17. Detre, Joshua D. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Oliver Peake, Whitney & Dooley, Frank J., 2011. "Academic Perspectives on Agribusiness: An International Survey," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1-25, December.
    18. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    19. Rik Pieters & Hans Baumgartner, 2002. "Who Talks to Whom? Intra- and Interdisciplinary Communication of Economics Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 483-509, June.
    20. Lívia Markóczy & David L. Deeds, 2009. "Theory Building at the Intersection: Recipe for Impact or Road to Nowhere?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 1076-1088, September.
    21. Kate Maxwell & Paul Benneworth, 2018. "The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-11, December.
    22. Michael L. Tushman & Ralph Katz, 1980. "External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(11), pages 1071-1085, November.
    23. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    24. Mooney, Siân & Young, Douglas & Cobourn, Kelly & Islam, Samia, 2013. "Multidisciplinary Research: Implications for Agricultural and Applied Economists," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 187-202, May.
    25. Susan Clark & Richard Wallace, 2015. "Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts, frameworks, and education," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 233-255, June.
    26. Ng, Desmond W. & Siebert, John W., 2009. "Toward Better Defining the Field of Agribusiness Management," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, November.
    27. W James Jacob, 2015. "Interdisciplinary trends in higher education," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(palcomms2), pages 15001-15001, January.
    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. Harrison, R. Wes & Ng, Desmond W., 2011. "The Scientific Pluralism of Agribusiness: A Special Issue on Theory and Practice: Forward," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 1-10, December.
    2. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    3. Madhu Khanna, 2022. "Breakthroughs at the disciplinary nexus: Rewards and challenges for applied economists," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(2), pages 475-492, March.
    4. Edamisan Stephen Ikuemonisan & Taiwo Ejiola Mafimisebi & Igbekele Amos Ajibefun & Adeyose Emmanuel Akinbola & Olanrewaju Peter Oladoyin, 2022. "Analysis of Youth’s Willingness to Exploit Agribusiness Opportunities in Nigeria with Entrepreneurship as a Moderating Variable," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    6. Priyono Anjar & Nursyamsiah Siti & Darmawan Baziedy A., 2019. "Managing ambidexterity in internationalisation of SMEs from an emerging country: A dynamic capability perspective," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 10(3), pages 7-26, December.
    7. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    8. Wenke, Kathrin & Zapkau, Florian B. & Schwens, Christian, 2021. "Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 653-665.
    9. Erkut Altındağ & Hande Bilaloğlu Aktürk, 2020. "The Impact of New Generation Management Approaches on the Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Strategic Human Resource Management Applications," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, September.
    10. Solís-Molina, Miguel & Hernández-Espallardo, Miguel & Rodríguez-Orejuela, Augusto, 2018. "Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 181-194.
    11. Katou, Anastasia A. & Budhwar, Pawan S. & Patel, Charmi, 2021. "A trilogy of organizational ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and environmental changes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 688-700.
    12. Sebastian Raisch & Michael L. Tushman, 2016. "Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1257, October.
    13. Ansari, Shahzad (Shaz) & Krop, Pieter, 2012. "Incumbent performance in the face of a radical innovation: Towards a framework for incumbent challenger dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1357-1374.
    14. Shuwaikh, Fatima & Brintte, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2022. "The impact of dynamic ambidexterity on the performance of organizations: Evidence from corporate venture capital investing in North America," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 991-1009.
    15. Alexander Zimmermann & Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw, 2015. "How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1119-1139, August.
    16. Feifei Jiang & Donghan Wang & Zelong Wei, 2022. "How Yin-Yang cognition affects organizational ambidexterity: the mediating role of strategic flexibility," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 1187-1214, December.
    17. Ojha, Divesh & Acharya, Chandan & Cooper, Danielle, 2018. "Transformational leadership and supply chain ambidexterity: Mediating role of supply chain organizational learning and moderating role of uncertainty," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 215-231.
    18. Bob Walrave & A Georges L Romme & Kim E van Oorschot & Fred Langerak, 2017. "Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(6), pages 1145-1160.
    19. Katsuki Aoki & Miriam Wilhelm, 2017. "The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1080-1097, December.
    20. Van Fleet, David D. & Hutt, Roger W., 2016. "Journal Lists: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-20, August.

    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:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0235-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.