contrasting approaches to interdisciplinarity at doctoral level students’ experiences maría del...

Contrasting Approaches toInterdisciplinarity at Doctoral Level

Students’ experiences

María del Carmen Calatrava Vienna University of Technology

Mary Ann Danowitz North Carolina State University

Outline

• Need for the study• Context & Doctoral Programs• Methods• Results• Sense making and implications

Need for the study

• Interdisciplinary approaches needed to solve complex real-world problems

• European universities responded creating new forms of doctoral education (i.e., doctoral schools and colleges)

• Little knowledge on interdisciplinary research (IDR) in such new doctoral programs

Context & Doctoral programs

Parallel programs in the same faculty:• Traditional European• Multidisciplinary PhD School• Specialized PhD College

Structured PhD

Traditional European Multidisciplinary CS program Specialized program

• Loosely regulated- Admissions- Courses

• Majority univ and project assist

• Minority self-funded / scholarship

• Highly regulated‐ Admissions‐ Courses‐ Milestones

• Co-organized by multiple faculties

• Covers 1 area• Major area courses• Project ass. +

scholarship

PS FacultyS

• All 5 research areas in CS faculty

• Major and 2nd area courses

• Scholarship

529 Students 43 Students 8 Students

Research groupS

Methods

Mixed methods design:

1. Quantitative: Bibliometric analysis interdisciplinarity– Examine students’ scientific activity– Identify interdisciplinary students

2. Qualitative: – Factors and processes allowing IDR

Quantitative Method

Publication data extraction:

• # students: 223• # students’ publications: 1746• # students’ references: 16817

Methods

A total of 249 CTs

Quantitative Method

Top-down approach– Disciplines defined in an existing taxonomy– Interdisciplinarity incorporates the work of 2 or more

disciplines [1].

Ref1 Ref2 Ref3 Ref4 Ref5 Ref8Ref6 Ref7

CT1 CT2 CT3 CT4

[1] National Academies report. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2005)

Results - Quantitative Method

Purposive sampling of interview candidates

Trad Prog

Multidisc Prog

Specialized Prog

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0Students

Inte

rdis

cipl

inar

ity

Qualitative Method

Semi-structured interviews• Questions developed from the literature• 50-80 minutes• 9 Participants

ExperiencesSupervision

Netw

ork

ing

Publications

Doctoral program

Facu

lty

Research groupOpportunities

Difficulties

Interdisciplinarity

Colla

bora

tion

Expectations

Back

gro

und

Meth

ods

Results – Qualitative Method

Factors and processes allowing IDR:

One would expect influence from:• Courses different disciplines• Participation of different faculties• Interdisciplinary research projects interdisciplinary thinking

• Individual background characteristics• Program structure and processes

“For me it is not so important that I have a big technological invention, but that I solve [a real-world problem]. For me it is not just a use case that I would easily exchange for some other problem.”

Results – Qualitative Method

Individual background characteristics• Values

Results – Qualitative Method

Individual background characteristics• Values• Motivation

“I suddenly identified my field for me because it is the intersection of computation, which is my profession and my interest, and [other discipline] which is also my passion and my interest.”

Results – Qualitative Method

Individual background characteristics• Values• Motivation• Skills and knowledge

“I have always been interested in [other discipline]. I have been working in [other discipline] for my master's thesis and a job that I had previously.”

Results – Qualitative Method

Program structure & processes• Autonomy

“The doctoral school gives you a lot of independence, because no one is telling you what to do. You choose what you want to do. […] It is possible to do a PhD in these areas and this is where I contribute.”

Results – Qualitative Method

Program structure & processes• Autonomy• Funding

• Project assistantship: Topic and contribution fixed by project

• University assistantship: Topic aligns with research group

• Scholarship and self-funding: Topic agreed with supervisor

Results – Qualitative Method

Program structure & processes• Autonomy• Funding• Supervision

“My supervisor is not a hard-core disciplinary person, so that's makes it easier for me. […] He encourages us... he finds it very valuable that we combine two topics, one from IT and one from the real world.”

Sense making and implications

• Courses/faculty from different disciplines is insufficient to foster IDR.

• Greater attention should be directed to:– Students’ characteristics and antecedent

experiences– Supervision supporting IDR– Funding – Interdisciplinary project work beyond one faculty

Key References

• European University Association. (2007). Doctoral programmes in Europe’s universities: Achievements and challenges. Brussels, Belgium.

• Nyhagen, G. M., & Baschung, L. (2013). New organizational structures and the transformation of academic work. Higher Education, 66 (4), 409-423.

• Wagner, Caroline S., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 5.1 :14-26.

• Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61-84.

• Stokols, D. (2012). Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. Enhancing Interdisciplinary Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Thank you

María del Carmen Calatrava Vienna University of Technologycarmen.calatrava@tuwien.ac.at

Mary Ann Danowitz North Carolina State Universitymdanowi@ncsu.edu