Born or made - Can interdisciplinary and intersectoral doctorate education create institutional entrepreneurs? A systematic review

[EN] Solving grand societal challenges such as equitable healthcare provision and climate change will require institutional entrepreneurs – people who can challenge prevailing regulations, behaviors, and ways of thinking. As the pinnacle of educational achievement, the doctoral degree should be the fire in which such fledgling institutional entrepreneurs are forged. Doctoral education has, however, been criticized as overspecialized and divorced from reality. We systematically review the doctoral education literature in our search for doctoral education programs that challenge institutional norms by bridging sectoral and disciplinary divides. We ask whether such programs can help to nurture institutionally entrepreneurial researchers. We find that students must manage ambiguous identities and wide networks but that such programs have the potential to equip them for both sense-making and sense-giving activities of institutional entrepreneurship.Leniston, N.; Mountford, N. (2021). Born or made - Can interdisciplinary and intersectoral doctorate education create institutional entrepreneurs? A systematic review. En 7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'21). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. 791-798. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd21.2021.12960OCS79179

Towards a flatter ontology of institutional logics : How logics relate in situations of institutional complexity

The institutional logics approach is a powerful lens with which to examine and understand contexts in which norms and conceptions are multiple, unclear or in flux. While logics at the societal level have been well elaborated and are, in the most part, widely understood and accepted, at the field level logics are not necessarily so clear. Field frames distort, merge and confuse the societal logic as field actors negotiate, rebalance, bridge and interpret logics in a recursively constitutive process. We review research in two institutionally complex fields—higher education and healthcare - that employs an institutional logics lens. We identify and categorize institutional logics arising in these two fields and ask how these field-level logics relate to each other and to societal-level ideal-type logics. We ask what roles ideologies play in mediating relations between the field-level logics and what are the mechanisms by which this happens. We find that, at the field level, societal logics can appear as field-level instantiations or merge to form hybrids. New field-level logics can also emerge, but often these are confused with ideologies, thus limiting the theory-building potential of the institutional logics approach. We identify and begin to resolve confusion between logics and ideologies, highlighting the role of ideologies in mediating the relationships between logics at the field level. We advocate for, and pave the way towards, a new research agenda enabled by a flatter ontology of institutional logics that sees a horizontal relationship between logics as well as a vertical relationship between logics and actors.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Markets and institutional fields: foundational concepts and a research agenda

We borrow the notion of field from institutional theory to think through how markets and their ‘outsides’–or at least one particular manifestation of an ‘outside’–stand in a dynamic and interactive relationship. We distinguish the field and the market in terms of issues versus exchange and identity versus position. We argue that the lack of clarity as to how fields and markets differ, relate, overlap, and are bounded, jeopardizes our ability to address important societal debates concerning the roles of markets within and across other areas of social life. It also hinders a consolidation of insights across different approaches to studying markets, even though researchers from different disciplines often address similar concerns. Key questions for which both conceptual and analytical clarity are essential include how markets and their ‘outsides’ (here: fields) intersect; whether and how diverse sets of actors interact, work, and migrate between fields and markets; and what dynamics may be observable between field and market. We provide four illustrative examples of field/market relationships and a theoretical, methodological, and empirical research agenda for future research into markets and their ‘outsides’.European Commission Horizon 2020National University of Ireland MaynoothOpen Access funding provided by the IReL Consortiu

Vectors and drivers of connected health in Europe: a foundation for integrated care

Coordinated, integrated care requires connected “inputs, delivery, management and organization of services related to diagnosis, treatment, care, rehabilitation and health promotion” (Grone & Barbero, 2002). Connected health (CH) offers a key building block as a “paradigm shift, looking after the individual and community health in a process that speaks to the health journey of the person, through the entire lifespan, leveraging a variety of technologies to do so” (ENJECT, 2016). However, CH is failing to reach its full potential – and therefore failing in its contribution to the realization of integrated care

Fiscal Multipliers in Good Times and Bad Times

This paper estimates the magnitudes of government spending and tax multipliers within a regime-switching framework for the U.S economy during the period 1949:1- 2006:4. Our results show that the magnitudes of spending multipliers are larger during periods of low economic activity, while the magnitudes of tax multipliers are larger during periods of high economic activity. We also show that the magnitudes of fiscal multipliers got smaller for episodes of low growth, while they got larger for episodes of high growth in the post 1980 period. Analyzing the effects of government spending and taxes on consumption and investment spending indicates that the magnitude of the effects of fiscal shocks on consumption and investment is very small

Interdisciplinary doctoral research networks: enhancers and inhibitors of social capital development

Interdisciplinary research networks are increasing, with professionals encouraged to undertake research across disciplines to increase innovation, creativity and knowledge. More recently, this interdisciplinary focus is being mirrored by the establishment of interdisciplinary doctoral research networks. But do these networks work? And if so, how and why? We employ social capital theory to (a) understand the lived experiences of students in interdisciplinary doctoral programmes and (b) build programme design theory to support the development of social capital within such programmes. We present the results of 28 semi-structured interviews conducted with doctoral students from three European Union funded interdisciplinary research training networks to understand how they perceive the enhancers, inhibitors and manifestations of social capital within their networks. Key themes revolve around ‘extracting value from the interdisciplinary process’, ‘motivating students throughout the interdisciplinary programme journey’, and ‘relating to others both within and external to the programme’. We propose a framework for interdisciplinary programme design

Leveraging Interdisciplinary Education Toward Securing the Future of Connected Health Research in Europe: Qualitative Study

Background: Connected health (CH) technologies have resulted in a paradigm shift, moving health care steadily toward a more patient-centered delivery approach. CH requires a broad range of disciplinary expertise from across the spectrum to work in a cohesive and productive way. Building this interdisciplinary relationship at an earlier stage of career development may nurture and accelerate the CH developments and innovations required for future health care. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of interdisciplinary CH researchers regarding the design and delivery of an interdisciplinary education (IDE) module for disciplines currently engaged in CH research (engineers, computer scientists, health care practitioners, and policy makers). This study also investigated whether this module should be delivered as a taught component of an undergraduate, master’s, or doctoral program to facilitate the development of interdisciplinary learning. Methods: A qualitative, cross-institutional, multistage research approach was adopted, which involved a background study of fundamental concepts, individual interviews with CH researchers in Greece (n=9), and two structured group feedback sessions with CH researchers in Ireland (n=10/16). Thematic analysis was used to identify the themes emerging from the interviews and structured group feedback sessions. Results: A total of two sets of findings emerged from the data. In the first instance, challenges to interdisciplinary work were identified, including communication challenges, divergent awareness of state-of-the-art CH technologies across disciplines, and cultural resistance to interdisciplinarity. The second set of findings were related to the design for interdisciplinarity. In this regard, the need to link research and education with real-world practice emerged as a key design concern. Positioning within the program context was also considered to be important with a need to balance early intervention to embed integration with later repeat interventions that maximize opportunities to share skills and experiences. Conclusions: The authors raise and address challenges to interdisciplinary program design for CH based on an abductive approach combining interdisciplinary and interprofessional education literature and the collection of qualitative data. This recipe approach for interdisciplinary design offers guidelines for policy makers, educators, and innovators in the CH space. Gaining insight from CH researchers regarding the development of an IDE module has offered the designers a novel insight regarding the curriculum, timing, delivery, and potential challenges that may be encountered

An Interdisciplinary 4th Level Education Model:Connected Health

[EN] This paper responds to the need for interdisciplinary approaches to fourth level education that better reflect the complexity of the world in which we work and conduct research. We discuss this need in technology-enabled healthcare, Connected Health. We propose a model for fourth level interdisciplinary education and discuss its trial application in two European structured PhD programmes in the Connected Health research arena. We suggest broader learning objectives for the emerging fourth level graduate, methods for incorporating multiple disciplinary inputs and perspectives into deep disciplinary PhD training, intersectoral approaches to ensure employability and impact, and innovative training methods and structures to facilitate interdisciplinary and intersectoral learning. We give some examples of innovative training modules used within the pilot programmes. Finally we discuss six core elements of a truly interdisciplinary programme at fourth level - exposure to different environments, joint supervision, a genuine role for the non academic sector, career development training and planning, the development of a sustainable network beyond the life of the programme, and data openess.Mountford, N.; Kessie, T.; Watts, G.; Fernandez Luque, L.; Chouvarda, I.; Cusack, T. (2017). An Interdisciplinary 4th Level Education Model:Connected Health. En Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. 956-964. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAD17.2017.5485OCS95696

The Extent and Coverage of Current Knowledge of Connected Health: Systematic Mapping Study

Background: This paper examines the development of the Connected Health research landscape with a view on providing a historical perspective on existing Connected Health research. Connected Health has become a rapidly growing research field as our healthcare system is facing pressured to become more proactive and patient centred. Objective: We aimed to identify the extent and coverage of the current body of knowledge in Connected Health. With this, we want to identify which topics have drawn the attention of Connected health researchers, and if there are gaps or interdisciplinary opportunities for further research. Methods: We used a systematic mapping study that combines scientific contributions from research on medicine, business, computer science and engineering. We analyse the papers with seven classification criteria, publication source, publication year, research types, empirical types, contribution types research topic and the condition studied in the paper. Results: Altogether, our search resulted in 208 papers which were analysed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers. Our results indicate a slow start for Connected Health research but a more recent steady upswing since 2013. The majority of papers proposed healthcare solutions (37%) or evaluated Connected Health approaches (23%). Case studies (28%) and experiments (26%) were the most popular forms of scientific validation employed. Diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and heart conditions are among the most prevalent conditions studied. Conclusions: We conclude that Connected Health research seems to be an established field of research, which has been growing strongly during the last five years. There seems to be more focus on technology driven research with a strong contribution from medicine, but business aspects of Connected health are not as much studied