Interdisciplinary research ‘struggles to bridge academic silos’

Study of grant funding in Australia suggests that collaboration across STEM and non-STEM divide is not the norm

六月 7, 2019
Couple ignoring each other

Enticing researchers from very different subject areas to collaborate – such as philosophers working with computer scientists – is often seen as a key aim of 21st-century scholarship.

But a new study that looked at the extent to which different fields were involved in research projects in Australia suggests radical cross-disciplinary collaborations may not be the norm.

The study, led by researchers at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Engineering, used subject codes to look at the relative contribution of different fields to interdisciplinary projects funded by the Australian Research Council.

They found that certain disciplines such as engineering and biological sciences – and to a lesser extent some humanities subjects – “dominated” interdisciplinary research at both an individual and aggregate level.

But the study also found that, rather than reaching across major disciplinary divides, such subject areas were also more often than not working with very similar fields.

“We can easily see that engineering, medical and humanities related disciplines formed clusters within themselves,” the paper says, with biological sciences being the only major example of a field that “seemed to be in a bridging position” with “collaboration to both medical science and engineering disciplines”.

The narrowness of collaborations was even more pronounced when looking at how often science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects joined forces with non-STEM fields, according to the paper in Scientometrics.

Shahadat Uddin, senior lecturer in the Sydney faculty’s Complex Systems Research Group, and one of the paper’s co-authors, said additional data from the project showed that 64 per cent of the overall “participation strength” in interdisciplinary projects came from collaboration between science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. Collaboration between non-STEM fields represented 23 per cent and only 13 per cent came from collaborations between STEM and non-STEM disciplines.

Further data also showed that on average there had been lower growth in interdisciplinary projects featuring both STEM and non-STEM subjects than for those completely within each area. 

He said that if the aim of funders, policymakers and universities was to boost interdisciplinary research across the board then the analysis was “quite satisfactory” in terms of the “intense collaboration” they identified.

“However, if the goal…is to encourage collaboration between contrasting fields – eg, between STEM and non-STEM topics – then our research shows that there are significant gaps in the collaboration between these contrasting topics.”

Dr Uddin added: “The evidence is surprising in the way that the contrasting topics are not getting much attention or attracting funding to boost up their growth or participation strengths as much as purely STEM or humanities-based topics.”

He suggested that to increase such collaboration there might need to be improved guidelines on funding interdisciplinary projects while also carrying out a “rigorous review on the current trends to push the research endeavour forward”.

simon.baker@timeshighereducation.com

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

相关文章

Reader's comments (1)

Unsurprising, most STEM researchers are well aware of the deleterious effects non-stem courses can have on a Universities reputation, especially when the press gets to show the ranting raving left-wing left-whinge lunacy side of academia. Who knowingly would risk their hard won scientific reputation?

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多