Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
117,323
result(s) for
"Interdisciplinary Research"
Sort by:
Disrupting boundaries in education and research
\"In Disrupting Boundaries in Education and Research, six educational researchers explore together the potentialities of transdisciplinary research that de-centres human behaviour and gives materiality its due in the making of educational worlds. The book presents accounts of what happens when researchers think and act with new materiality and post-human theories to disrupt boundaries such as self and other, human and non-human, representation and objectivity. Each of the core chapters works with different new materiality concepts to disrupt these boundaries and to consider the emotive, sensory, nuanced, material and technological aspects of learning in diverse settings, such as in mathematics and learning to swim, discovering the bio-products of 'eco-sustainable' building, making videos and contending with digital government and its alienating effects. When humans are no longer at the centre of the unfolding world it is both disorienting and exhilarating. This book is an invitation to continue along these paths\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Convergence
Convergence of the life sciences with fields including physical, chemical, mathematical, computational, engineering, and social sciences is a key strategy to tackle complex challenges and achieve new and innovative solutions. However, institutions face a lack of guidance on how to establish effective programs, what challenges they are likely to encounter, and what strategies other organizations have used to address the issues that arise. This advice is needed to harness the excitement generated by the concept of convergence and channel it into the policies, structures, and networks that will enable it to realize its goals.
Convergence investigates examples of organizations that have established mechanisms to support convergent research. This report discusses details of current programs, how organizations have chosen to measure success, and what has worked and not worked in varied settings. The report summarizes the lessons learned and provides organizations with strategies to tackle practical needs and implementation challenges in areas such as infrastructure, student education and training, faculty advancement, and inter-institutional partnerships.
eBook
Artful collaborative inquiry : making and writing creative, qualitative research
\"Artful Collaborative Inquiry comprises essays created collectively by a group of scholars and artists, the majority of whom have several decades of experience of working together. The book challenges commonly-held, individualistic beliefs about ownership, authorship and scholarly and artistic ethics and practices. The chapters combine the playful use and merging of time, space and place, researcher and researched, to give a unique exemplar of research and creativity in the rapidly emerging field of collaborative scholarship. It will be of particular interest to creative and qualitative scholars wishing to conduct more artful research, and artists engaging with scholarship\"-- Provided by publisher.
BOOK
Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology
One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence
1
–
3
. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities
3
, improvements in communication technology
4
,
5
, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions
6
–
8
. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technology produced by large teams differs from that of small teams. Here we analyse more than 65 million papers, patents and software products that span the period 1954–2014, and demonstrate that across this period smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, whereas larger teams have tended to develop existing ones. Work from larger teams builds on more-recent and popular developments, and attention to their work comes immediately. By contrast, contributions by smaller teams search more deeply into the past, are viewed as disruptive to science and technology and succeed further into the future—if at all. Observed differences between small and large teams are magnified for higher-impact work, with small teams known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and research design account for a small part of the relationship between team size and disruption; most of the effect occurs at the level of the individual, as people move between smaller and larger teams. These results demonstrate that both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology, and suggest that, to achieve this, science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes.
Analyses of the output produced by large versus small teams of researchers and innovators demonstrate that their work differs systematically in the extent to which it disrupts or develops existing science and technology.
Journal Article
Chapters on Interdisciplinary Research and Research Skills
This book is a special edition, compiled for to the MSc Course Research Methodologies as taught at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering at Delft University of Technology. It is a compilation of useful chapters from several sources on how to structure, set up, carry out and write up your (thesis) research to aid you in writing your research plan.
eBook
Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?
Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact.
Journal Article
From scientific discovery to treatments for rare diseases – the view from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences – Office of Rare Diseases Research
We now live in a time of unprecedented opportunities to turn scientific discoveries into better treatments for the estimated 30 million people in the US living with rare diseases. Despite these scientific advances, more than 90% of rare diseases still lack an effective treatment. New data and genetics technologies have resulted in the first transformational new treatments for a handful of rare diseases. This challenges us as a society to accelerate progress so that no disease and no patient is, ultimately, left behind in getting access to safe and effective therapeutics. This article reviews initiatives of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR) that are aimed at catalyzing rare diseases research. These initiatives fall into two groups: Promoting information sharing; and building multi-disciplinary multi-stakeholder collaborations. Among ORDR’s information sharing initiatives are GARD (The Genetics and Rare Diseases Information Center), RaDaR (The Rare Diseases Registries Program) and the NCATS Toolkit for Patient-Focused Therapy Development (Toolkit). Among the collaboration initiatives are the RDCRN (Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network), and the NCATS ORDR support for conferences and workshops. Despite the success of these programs, there remains substantial work to be done to build enhanced collaborations, clinical harmonization and interoperability, and stakeholder engagement so that the recent scientific advances can benefit all patients on the long list of rare diseases waiting for help.
Journal Article