IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tkmrxx/v18y2020i1p110-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Obstacles and levers of interdisciplinary collaborative work. The case of ALLIBEAS

Author

Listed:
  • Delphine Wannenmacher

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration is often highlighted in official discourses and represents a considerable challenge for organisations, universities and schools. To address this challenge, proximities/distances, knowledge boundaries and boundary objects are useful concepts to analyse the obstacles facing interdisciplinary collaboration, and to identify levers to cross the knowledge boundaries between disciplines. We raise two research questions. Why is it so hard to work together and collaborate in an interdisciplinary context? How can interdisciplinary collaborative work be sustained? To answer these two questions, we mobilise the literature on the subject and analyse the case of ALLIBEAS. The study highlights three main findings. Cognitive and institutional distances and collective tacit knowledge create knowledge boundaries that make collaboration difficult. Geographical, social and organisational proximities facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, but are not sufficient. Some micro processes and artefacts are needed to make students from different disciplines and schools interact, create social links, and cross knowledge boundaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Delphine Wannenmacher, 2020. "Obstacles and levers of interdisciplinary collaborative work. The case of ALLIBEAS," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 110-119, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tkmrxx:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:110-119
    DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2019.1701960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14778238.2019.1701960
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14778238.2019.1701960?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.

    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:taf:tkmrxx:v:18:y:2020:i:1:p:110-119. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tkmr .

    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.