Afterword: the emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research evaluation

The complexity of evaluating interdisciplinary (ID) and transdisciplinary (TD) research defies a single standard. Yet, common elements appear in the emergent literature. Five overriding themes stand out. (1) Quality is a relative concept, driven by variability of goals and criteria. (2) A coaching model of evaluation nurtures the research process. (3) Integration is central to the process. (4) Social and cognitive factors interact, requiring management of information and decisionmaking. (5) The need for change in peer review has led to a variety of strategies. ID and TD evaluation is a generative activity that entails acts of “capitalizing” and “harvesting” expertise while “calibrating” standards to produce new “cultures of evidence”

L'éducation primaire, secondaire et postsecondaire aux États-Unis : vers l’unification du discours sur l’interdisciplinarité

Cet article vise à établir un discours commun concernant l'interdisciplinarité à tous les ordres d'enseignement. Il est articulé autour de quatre points. Le contexte historique établit des rapprochements au niveau des tendances, des concepts et des structures apparus au cours du siècle. Le contexte curriculaire compare les structures et les principes organisateurs de différents curriculums; il fait aussi ressortir l'importance des thèmes et des problèmes. Le contexte d'enseignement examine des questions courantes de pédagogie, de processus intégrateurs et de changements institutionnels. Enfin, le contexte de formation à l'enseignement insiste sur la nécessité d'une préparation formelle et d'un développement professionnel continu. Cette étude traite aussi des principaux problèmes et des limites de l'approche interdisciplinaire dont elle présente un aperçu de la documentation publiée en anglais.The aim of this article is to establish a common discourse relating to interdisciplinarity at all levels of education. These are four main comparisons presented. The historical context promotes understandings regarding tendancies, concepts, and structures that have developped during the last century. The curricular context compares structures and organizational principles of different curriculums; underlining the importance of themes and problems. The teaching context examines current questions in pedagogy, in integrative processes and in institutional changes. Finally, the teacher training context stresses the need for formal training and for professional inservice development. This study also examines the main problems and limits relating to the interdisciplinary approach as described in the literature published in English.Este articulo tiene por meta establecer un discurso comiin sobre la interdisciplinariedad en todos los nivelés de ensenanza. Esta articulado alrededor de cuatro puntos. El contexto historico establece los contactos a nivel de tendencias, conceptos y estructuras que han aparecido en el curso de este siglo. El contexto curricular compara las estructuras y principios organizadores de diferentes curriculos, haciendo resaltar asi la importancia de ciertos temas y problemas. El contexto de ensenanza examina cuestiones corrientes de pedagogia, de procesos integradores y de cambio institucional. En fin, el contexto de formacion docente insiste en la necesidad de una preparacion formai y un desarrollo profesional continuo. Este estudio trata también los problemas principales y los limites del enfoque interdisciplinario del cual présenta un resumen de la documentaciôn publicada en inglés.Dieser Artikel versucht, den Begriff der Interdisziplinarität über die verschiedenen Schulstufen hinaus zu vereinheidichen. Er ist um vier Vergleichspunkte gegliedert. Der historische Zusammenhang ermoglicht es, zwischen den im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts auftretenden Tendenzen, Begriffe und Strukturen Ähnlichkeiten aufzuweisen. Im zweiten Teil werden die Strukturen und Organisationsprinzipien verschiedener Lehrpläne miteindander verglichen, wobei die Bedeutung der Themen und der Probleme herausgestellt wird. Im dritten Teil handelt es sich um Unterricht; dabei werden Aspekte besprochen beziiglich der Pädagogik, der integrierenden Prozesse und des institutionellen Wandels. Der vierte Vergleichspunkt betrirft die Lehrerbildung; es wird hervorgehoben, dass formelle Vorbereitung und berufliche Fortbildung besonders wichtig sind. Schließlich untersucht der Artikel die wichtigsten Probleme und die Grenzen der interdisziplinären Methode und bespricht kurz die einschlägige Literatur in englischer Sprache

A Platform for a Shared Discourse of Interdisciplinary Education

“Disciplinarity” and “interdisciplinarity” have become keywords for knowledge and education in the twenty-first century. This development requires that administrators, curriculum planners, and teachers at all levels of the educational system have a common understanding of both terms and their relationship. The primary case study is the school level in the United States. Yet, comparisons with other nations suggest a platform for longer-term international dialogue that bridges the discourses of interdisciplinarity across national contexts as well as school and university levels. A shared discourse and programs of teacher training require awareness of historical contexts of interdisciplinary education, major terminology for distinguishing design models, characteristic pedagogical approaches, and related learning skills

Digital Humanities in Ten Pages or Less! Engaging Students with Digital Texts through Sustainable Collaboration

Digital Humanities projects are somewhat new to many librarians, particularly those who are liaisons to faculty who are venturing into this area. Because of this “newness,” many librarians are unsure of their role in engaging with faculty or other librarian colleagues who are working with digital collections and editions, text mining, or other applications of technology to humanities scholarship. A digital humanities project need not be intimidating. Opportunities are nascent in everyday projects and technologies. Through the example of a digital humanities project integrated into a senior-level writing intensive course for English majors, this session will offer attendees a working definition of digital humanities, provide ideas for collaborating with faculty to introduce digital humanities projects into the curriculum, offer data on student engagement with digital texts, and demonstrate that digital humanities projects can be approachable, manageable and fruitful for student learning. Creating a sustainable collaboration by looking for complementary skill sets among your colleagues can lead to opportunities growing out of your job responsibilities. This project developed from two collaborations: one between the liaison and the digital publishing librarian and the other from an ongoing instructional collaboration between the liaison and a faculty member. The problem/question for investigation was two-fold and emerged from the digitization of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s publication, “The Yellow Wall-Paper” (1892), for a visiting National Library of Medicine exhibit. The liaison was interested in investigating student perceptions and attitudes towards reading literary texts online, while the digital publishing librarian was looking to improve a library-developed eReader and the experience of reading online. The faculty member, in turn, has been engaged for many years in expanding uses and understandings of new digital technologies and media in a traditional academic discipline. The approach was to join forces with the faculty member, who was offering a senior seminar in Digital Humanities for English majors. Working collaboratively with the faculty member the librarians developed an instructional unit within the course, which introduced the evolution of digital literary texts. They provided the students with an assignment using a digitized text, and collected blog postings and a survey to examine for evidence of attitudes towards reading digitized literary texts and feedback for improving the eReader and Python-based TextAnalysis tool. Attendees will hear the perspectives of the faculty member, liaison librarian and digital publishing librarian on the collaboration process and the value of this course-integrated digital humanities project for student learning. Survey results and analysis of blogs will offer insight into student attitudes towards reading online literary texts, which will contribute to a growing body of research on college students and their perspectives on reading electronic texts (Keller 2012; Rose 2011; Hernon et al. 2007). The presentation will engage the audience through interactive polling via mobile devices, using survey questions related to digital humanities and online reading. Attendees will take away ideas for collaborating with faculty through a practical and useful example of a digital humanities project that will demonstrate the benefits of collaboration, illustrating that simple analysis tools can yield meaningful results

Approaches to Understanding and Measuring Interdisciplinary Scientific Research (IDR): A Review of the Literature

Interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR) challenges the study of science from a number of fronts, including one of creating output science and engineering (S&E) indicators. This literature review began with a narrow focus on quantitative measures of the output of IDR, but expanded the scope as it became clear that differing definitions, assessment tools, evaluation processes, and measures all shed light on aspects of IDR. Key among the broader aspects are (a) characterizing the concept of knowledge integration, and (b) recognizing that it can occur within a single mind or as the result of team dynamics. Output measures alone cannot adequately capture this process. Among the quantitative measures considered, bibliometrics (co-authorships, collaborations, references, citations and co-citations) are the most developed, but leave considerable gaps in understanding. Emerging measures in diversity, entropy, and network dynamics are promising, but require sophisticated interpretations and thus would not serve well as S&E indicators. Combinations of quantitative and qualitative assessments coming from evaluation studies appear to reveal S&E processes but carry burdens of expense, intrusion, and lack of reproducibility. This review is a first step toward providing a more holistic view of measuring IDR; several avenues for future research highlight the need for metrics to reflect the actual practice of IDR

Publication and Evaluation Challenges in Games & Interactive Media

Faculty in the fields of games and interactive media face significant challenges in publishing and documenting their scholarly work for evaluation in the tenure and promotion process. These challenges include selecting appropriate publication venues and assigning authorship for works spanning multiple disciplines; archiving and accurately citing collaborative digital projects; and redefining “peer review,” impact, and dissemination in the context of creative digital works. In this paper I describe many of these challenges, and suggest several potential solutions

Caregiver-reported delay in presentation to pediatric emergency departments for fear of contracting COVID-19: a multi-national cross-sectional study

Objective: To determine if caregivers of children presenting to pediatric emergency departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic are delaying presenting to care for fear of contracting COVID-19. Methods: This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey study of caregivers accompanying their children aged 0-19 years to 16 pediatric EDs in 5 countries from May to June 2020. An anonymous online survey, completed by caregivers via RedCAP, included caregiver and child demographics, presenting complaints, if they delayed presentation and whether symptoms worsened during this interval, as well as caregiver concern about the child or caregiver having COVID-19 at the time of ED visit. Results: Of 1543 caregivers completing the survey, 287 (18.6%) reported a delay in seeking ED care due to concerns of contracting COVID-19 in the hospital. Of those, 124 (43.2%) stated their child's symptoms worsened during the waiting interval. Caregiver relationship to child [mother] (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.27-2.76), presence of chronic illness in child (OR 1.78. 95% CI 1.14-2.79), younger age of caregiver (OR 0.965, 95% CI 0.943-0.986), and caregiver concerns about lost work during the pandemic (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12) were independently associated with a COVID-19-related delayed presentation in multivariable regression analysis. Conclusions: Almost one in five caregivers reported delaying ED presentation for their ill or injured child specifically due to fear of contracting COVID-19 while in hospital, with mothers, younger caregivers, caregivers of children with chronic illness, and those concerned about lost work more likely to report delaying ED presentation. Keywords: COVID-19; Caregivers; Children; Emergency department; Presentation dela

Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?

Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.This article has its origins in the 2013 First Global Conference on Research Integration and Implementation (Integration and Implementation Sciences 2019a), which brought together the authors and specifically drew on all three realms of expertise. The conference was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence on Policing and Security and The Australian National University. Co-conferences in Germany, The Netherlands and Uruguay were, respectively, sponsored by Leuphana University of Lueneburg; the Centre for Innovation at Campus The Hague, Leiden University; and the Espacio Interdisciplinario, Universidad de la República

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Abstract Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/1/1748-5908-4-50.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/2/1748-5908-4-50-S1.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/3/1748-5908-4-50-S3.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/4/1748-5908-4-50-S4.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/5/1748-5908-4-50.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/6/1748-5908-4-50-S2.PDFPeer Reviewe