4.4 Article

A rose by any other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy

期刊

FUTURES
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 150-162

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.009

关键词

UK; Impact; Knowledge exchange; Transdisciplinarity; Interdisciplinarity; Knowledge mobilisation; Training

资金

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/H012001/1]
  2. UK Economic and Social Research Council
  3. ESRC [ES/F028180/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. NERC [NE/H012001/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F028180/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H012001/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper assesses developments in transdisciplinary research in the UK. While we support the thesis that transdisciplinarity is still not mainstream and is rarely supported per se by funders of research, this paper examines the extent to which UK research policy has embraced the concept of transdisciplinarity. Five empirical case studies provide data about the interrelationship between the interdisciplinary and impact or knowledge exchange aspirations of Research Council UK (RCUK) investments. We find evidence that, to an extent, UK research funding policy is achieving some elements of transdisciplinarity in practice, if not in name. Drawing on broader debates about the limitations of knowledge mobilisation and the challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research, we reflect on how the situation has changed since our original 2004 paper. The evidence suggests that the absence of the 'transdisciplinary' label is not necessarily impeding the framing of research funding schemes oriented towards societal issues. Nevertheless, several areas where capacity-building is required, including training for early career interdisciplinary researchers; improved research leadership skills; and the capacity to evaluate the quality of transdisciplinary processes and to learn from such evaluations, are identified. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据