contrasting approaches to interdisciplinarity at doctoral level students’ experiences maría del...
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]
Mary Ann Danowitz North Carolina State [email protected]