Disciplinary Balance Research Articles

Measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics of Chinese research in library and information science based on knowledge elements

PurposeThis study analyzed the interdisciplinary characteristics of Chinese research studies in library and information science (LIS) measured by knowledge elements extracted through the Lexicon-LSTM model.Design/methodology/approachEight research themes were selected for experiment, with a large-scale (N = 11,625) dataset of research papers from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database constructed. And it is complemented with multiple corpora. Knowledge elements were extracted through a Lexicon-LSTM model. A subject knowledge graph is constructed to support the searching and classification of knowledge elements. An interdisciplinary-weighted average citation index space was constructed for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions based on knowledge elements.FindingsThe empirical research shows that the Lexicon-LSTM model has superiority in the accuracy of extracting knowledge elements. In the field of LIS, the interdisciplinary diversity indicator showed an upward trend from 2011 to 2021, while the disciplinary balance and difference indicators showed a downward trend. The knowledge elements of theory and methodology could be used to detect and measure the interdisciplinary characteristics and contributions.Originality/valueThe extraction of knowledge elements facilitates the discovery of semantic information embedded in academic papers. The knowledge elements were proved feasible for measuring the interdisciplinary characteristics and exploring the changes in the time sequence, which helps for overview the state of the arts and future development trend of the interdisciplinary of research theme in LIS.

Is coronavirus-related research becoming more interdisciplinary? A perspective of co-occurrence analysis and diversity measure of scientific articles

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a significant repercussion on the health, economy, politics and environment, making coronavirus-related issues more complicated and difficult to adequately address by relying on a single field. Interdisciplinary research can provide an effective solution to complex issues in the related field of coronavirus. However, whether coronavirus-related research becomes more interdisciplinary still needs corroboration. In this study, we investigate interdisciplinary status of the coronavirus-related fields via the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19). To this end, we calculate bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity and apply a co-occurrence analysis method. The results show that co-occurrence relationships between cited disciplines have evolved dynamically over time. The two types of co-occurrence relationships, Immunology and Microbiology & Medicine and Chemical Engineering & Chemistry, last for a long time in this field during 1990–2020. Moreover, the number of disciplines cited by coronavirus-related research increases, whereas the distribution of disciplines is uneven, and this field tends to focus on several dominant disciplines such as Medicine, Immunology and Microbiology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. We also measure the disciplinary diversity of COVID-19 related papers published from January to December 2020; the disciplinary variety shows an upward trend, while the degree of disciplinary balance shows a downward trend. Meanwhile, the comprehensive index 2Ds demonstrates that the degree of interdisciplinarity in coronavirus field decreases between 1990 and 2019, but it increases in 2020. The results help to map the interdisciplinarity of coronavirus-related research, gaining insight into the degree and history of interdisciplinary cooperation.

Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

How Teachers Meet in Interdisciplinary Teams: Hangouts, Distribution Centers, and Melting Pots.

To explore team learning processes among interdisciplinary teacher teams in the development of integrated health professions education and to investigate students' perspectives on the quality of the educational courses. Using an exploratory, sequential mixed-methods design, the first author conducted 17 vignette-guided, semistructured interviews with teachers originating from diverse disciplines. These teachers worked in different courses of integrated, undergraduate health professions programs at the Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, the Netherlands. The interview guide and vignettes were based on team learning research. The interviews sought to establish how interdisciplinary teacher team members work together on integrated curricula. The vignettes reflected constructs of team learning processes: sharing, co-construction, and constructive conflict. Data were collected between November 2017 and March 2018 and analyzed using template analysis. Sequentially, course evaluation data were used to provide a descriptive analysis of students' perspectives on educational quality (course organization, structure, learning effect, and alignment). Three team approaches were identified. In fragmented teams or "hangouts," teachers individually worked on tasks that they were interested in, leaving their disciplinary mark. Framework-guided teams or "distribution centers" aimed to work within the given frameworks and organizational expectations, striving for disciplinary balance. Integrated teacher teams or "melting pots" used an interdisciplinary approach on all topics and put students at the center. Integrated teams reflected high-level team learning processes and were most satisfied with their (team)work. In contrast, fragmented and framework-guided teams mainly reflected low-level team learning processes. Students evaluated courses of integrated teacher teams highest on all investigated quality items (course organization, structure, learning effect, and alignment). Successful interdisciplinary teacher teams are represented by an integrated approach with high-level team learning behavior and the best course evaluations. Therefore, health professions education management should actively encourage and facilitate integrated teacher teamwork.

Multidisciplinary Flux and Multiple Research Traditions Within Cognitive Science.

Núñez et al. (2019) argue that cognitive science has failed either "to transition to a mature inter-disciplinary coherent field" (p. 782) or "to generate a successful [Lakatosian] research program" (p. 789). We argue that the former was never the intention of many early researchers within the field, while the latter is an inappropriate criterion by which to judge an entire discipline. However, we concur with Núñez et al. (2019) that the individual disciplinary balance within cognitive science has changed over time. Of particular concern is the fact that the use of computational methods appears to be on the wane.

Spatial Decision Support Systems: Three decades on

This paper uses a bibliometric approach to examine the growth of and changes in the Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) field over the past three decades. Bibliographic databases such as Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus provide valuable information on academic disciplines as they contain both the articles published and the articles cited. The articles published, and the disciplinary categorization of where they are published, are indicative of the changing disciplinary balance in SDSS, while the citation links of these papers illustrate the intellectual structure of the field. The analysis shows that despite conceptual links rooted in DSS, the field of SDSS developed largely independently from DSS, with little interaction between both. This is surprising, given the growing importance of spatial applications in DSS and an overlapping interest in business analytics and big data space-time analytics. The paper argues for greater interest in SDSS developments in the DSS field, including emergency response SDSS and public participation SDSS, as two forms of SDSS which extend DSS.

연구집단 특성이 융합연구 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증 연구: 선도연구센터 지원사업 중심으로

최근 연구개발의 패러다임은 다학제간 융합연구를 지향하고 있다. 본 연구는 융합연구 성과창출에 영향을 미치는 연구집단의 주요 특성을 발굴하기 위해, 연구집단의 투입 특성(연구비, 참여연구원 수, 연구집단 운영기간), 학제 특성(다종성, 균형성, 이질성), 협력 특성(협력파트너 수, 연구집단 위치, 성별 균형성)에 대해 분석하였다. 선도연구센터 사업의 104개 센터를 분석 대상으로 하였으며, 융합연구 성과는 센터에서 창출한 5,217건의 SCI 눈문을 대상으로 하였다. 분석 결과 연구집단의 학제 특성인 학제간 균형성, 연구집단의 협력 특성인 협력파트너 수는 융합 연구성과와 정(+)의 관계에 있는 것으로 나타났다. 의과학융합 분야와 이학공학 분야 등 통제변수로 도입한 연구집단의 연구분야는 융합연구 성과 창출을 달리하는 효과를 보였다. 융합연구는 연구의 목표를 달성하기 위한 수단으로써 인식해야 하며, 융합 연구성과 창출을 위해서는 연구집단 내 학제간 참여연구원의 구성 비율을 균형성 있게 구성하여 수평적인 협력 환경을 마련하고 연구집단 외부 연구주체들과 개방적 협력을 전략적으로 강화해야 할 것이다. Recently, the R&D paradigm has become oriented toward convergence technology and interdisciplinary research. In this study, to elucidate the characteristics of research groups that promote the performance of convergence research, we take into account the input characteristics, disciplinary characteristics and collaborative characteristics of research groups. For this study purpose, 5,217 SCI papers published from 104 centers in Advanced Research Center Projects are analyzed as research outputs. The research findings are that the disciplinary balance in the interdisciplinary characteristics and the number of partners in the collaborative characteristics are positively related to the convergence of R&D outputs. The research field of a group introduced as a control variable exerts a significant effect on the convergent R&D outputs. In conclusion, it is necessary to organize internally with the same number of each disciplinary researcher in a research group and to activate external collaboration with partners in order to produce more outputs of convergent research.

Towards a Grand Unified Theory of sports performance

Sports performance is generally considered to be governed by a range of interacting physiological, biomechanical, and psychological variables, amongst others. Despite sports performance being multi-factorial, however, the majority of performance-oriented sports science research has predominantly been monodisciplinary in nature, presumably due, at least in part, to the lack of a unifying theoretical framework required to integrate the various subdisciplines of sports science. In this target article, I propose a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of sports performance—and, by elaboration, sports science—based around the constraints framework introduced originally by Newell (1986). A central tenet of this GUT is that, at both the intra- and inter-individual levels of analysis, patterns of coordination and control, which directly determine the performance outcome, emerge from the confluence of interacting organismic, environmental, and task constraints via the formation and self-organisation of coordinative structures. It is suggested that this GUT could be used to: foster interdisciplinary research collaborations; break down the silos that have developed in sports science and restore greater disciplinary balance to the field; promote a more holistic understanding of sports performance across all levels of analysis; increase explanatory power of applied research work; provide stronger rationale for data collection and variable selection; and direct the development of integrated performance monitoring technologies. This GUT could also provide a scientifically rigorous basis for integrating the subdisciplines of sports science in applied sports science support programmes adopted by high-performance agencies and national governing bodies for various individual and team sports.

IPBES and Biodiversity Expertise: Regional, Gender, and Disciplinary Balance in the Composition of the Interim and 2015 Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an expert institution expected to transform the governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES expands on previous initiatives and positions itself as a knowledge-policy interface open to different ways of knowing biodiversity. In this contribution, we analyze how the principles of regional, gender, and disciplinary balance that were adopted by IPBES have been applied to the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP): the body of experts responsible for the scientific and technical functions of IPBES and embedded in its knowledge-making practices. In doing so, we compare the selection of the interim MEP in 2013 with the new MEP in 2015 and find a small improvement in gender and disciplinary balance that varies across the United Nations regional groupings. According to the ambition of IPBES, there is significant room for improvement, but opening-up expertise in an intergovernmental setting proves challenging.

Nineteenth-Century Rhetoric—The Big Problem

William Keith, Christian Lundberg, and James M. Farrell have thoughtfully reviewedmy effort to explicate howmodern public speaking came to be conceptualized on the basis of antecedent text genres.My argumentwas that a newunderstanding of oral rhetoric emerged between 1890 and 1930 as authors experimentally and variously appropriated concepts and frameworks from elocution (in its several iterations), from oratorical composition (as given in new-rhetoric treatises, advanced rhetorics, and composition books), and from varietal popular or professional works (of extemporaneous speaking, debating, and audienceadapted preaching). More broadly, my “Inventing Public Speaking” represents an effort to rebalance the larger history of rhetoric, 1730–1930, along the lines of orality in the context of a post-1980 emphasis upon writingcentered schoolbooks and pedagogies. Here my three colleagues usefully expand this principle of disciplinary balance by showing how the text-based conceptualizing of rhetoric may be enhanced, in Farrell’s telling, by deeper understandings of the professional and institutional roots of the modern communication discipline and, from Keith’s and Lundberg’s perspective, by historically sensitive refinements of pedagogy to promote speechmaking that is communicative, communitarian, and deliberative. But before exploring intersections betweenmy article and the commentaries of Farrell, Keith, and Lundberg, I wish to expand a bit on what I see as the Big Problem in

The Impact of Disciplinary Balance on Interdisciplinary Teamwork: A Comparative Case Study of Interdisciplinary Product Design Teams

This study presents results from a comparative case study of interdisciplinary product design teams from two consecutive years under non-balanced and balanced disciplinary conditions. The main difference between the two conditions was the hands-on exercise modules focusing on each discipline (e.g., electronic prototyping exercise) used for the balanced condition. The purpose of this paper was to examine cultural traits of different disciplines (Electrical & Computer Engineering, Industrial Design, and Marketing) using questionnaires and show the impact of disciplinary balance on the effectiveness of interdisciplinary product design teams through qualitative analysis of team meetings and products. The results indicated that the teams under the balanced disciplinary condition showed higher effectiveness. Implications and the future direction for the work are also described.

Disciplinary, Institutional, Funding, and Demographic Trends in Plant Pathology: What Does the Future Hold for the Profession?

Following the 2006 annual meeting of The American Phytopathological Society (APS), President Jan Leach appointed an ad hoc committee with the following charge: Based on an assessment of where plant pathology now stands as a profession, develop a vision of where we will be in the future (10-20 yrs) and how we should position ourselves to achieve this vision. Some key questions and background related to this topic include: (1) Disciplinary Balance (2) Institutional Erosion (3) Research Funding and (4) Age Demographics of the Profession. The year following the 100th birthday of APS seems an especially opportune time to take stock of where we stand as a discipline, to identify near-term and long-term challenges, and to discuss how we might meet those challenges in the future. Indeed, the present state and future prospects of our discipline have been recurrent themes of reviews, letters, and editorials from generations of plant pathologists (4,10–17). Most have reflected the experiences and the scholarly but nonetheless personal viewpoint of a single author. What was often lacking were the hard data that would support the stated positions when applied to the discipline as a whole. This report summarizes the efforts of the APS Ad Hoc Committee on the Present Status and Future of the Profession of Plant Pathology to address the above charge. We have attempted to rely upon a dispassionate methodology and go where the data lead us. Our approach has been to study key events and trends of the last several decades at the national level, assemble a base of information from which to properly understand the issues, and attempt to identify and project future trends and challenges facing the profession. Only then would we be in a position to develop recommendations for the profession to meet such challenges. A complete census of plant pathology at U.S. universities, conducted by the Ad Hoc Committee in 2007, formed the foundation for these analyses. Census of plant pathology at U.S. universities. Although both APS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) collect various statistics on departments and sample survey data on graduate degrees in plant pathology, we are not aware of any recent census of plant pathology at U.S. universities. A census differs from a survey in that the aim is to measure an entire population rather than rely upon a statistical sample. A complete and accurate assessment of the number of active plant pathology faculty at U.S. universities, the size of the graduate student population, and membership of both groups in APS was an essential precursor to any demographic analysis. We collected the following responses: (i) the total number of faculty in a department, (ii) the number of plant pathology faculty in the department in the case of multidisciplinary departments (such as plant science or entomology and plant pathology), (iii) the number of faculty who belonged to APS, (iv) the number of faculty who held doctoral degrees in plant pathology, (v) the total number of M.S. and Ph.D. students in the department (some of whom may be pursuing degrees in areas other than plant pathology), and (vi) the number of plant pathology graduate students (both M.S. and Ph.D.). The data were collected by repeatedly sending a blank spreadsheet to department chairs, former students, postdocs, and colleagues across the United States. Missing data were obtained from department websites and the APS member database. All 1862 and 1890 Land Grant institutions were included in the census. Additional plant pathology faculty and students outside the aforementioned systems were located by searching the APS membership database for faculty and student affiliations. Plant pathology faculty, as well as plant patholCorresponding author: David M. Gadoury, Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY; E-mail: dmg4@nysaes.cornell.edu

Clustering the science citation index using co-citations. II. Mapping science

Previous attempts to map science using the co-citation clustering methodology are reviewed, and their shortcomings analyzed. Two enhancements of the methodology presented in Part I of the paper-fractional citation counting and variable level clustering—are briefly described and a third enhancement, the iterative clustering of clusters, is introduced. When combined, these three techniques improve our ability to generate comprehensive and representative mappings of science across the multidisciplinaryScience Citation Index (SCI) data base. Results of a four step analysis of the 1979SCI are presented, and the resulting map at the fourth iteration is described in detail. The map shows a tightly integrated network of approximate disciplinary regions, unique in that for the first time links between mathematics and biomedical science have brought about a closure of the previously linear arrangement of disciplines. Disciplinary balance between biomedical and physical science has improved, and the appearance of less cited subject areas, such as mathematics and applied science, makes this map the most comprehensive one yet produced by the co-citation methodology. Remaining problems and goals for future work are discussed.