Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Convergence Research as a ‘System-of-Systems’: A Framework and Research Agenda

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past decade, Convergence Research has increasingly gained prominence as a research, development, and innovation (RDI) strategy to address grand societal challenges. However, a dearth of research-based evidence is available to aid researchers, research teams, and institutions with navigating the complexities attendant to the specifics of Convergence Research. This paper presents a multilevel research agenda that accounts for an integral understanding of Convergence Research as a complex adaptive system. Furthermore, by developing a framework that accounts for ancillary, yet essential, systems associated with Convergence Research, we enrich the agenda with a literature-steeped discussion that considers how systems-based practices of collaboration, inquiry, and context interact with the processes and products of Convergence Research. Finally, we synthesize and apply insights from the reviewed literature by providing paths for empirical exploration emphasizing systems-based practices. In so doing, we delineate an extended boundary for a research stream that both clarifies and enlarges our understanding of Convergence Research as a ‘system-of-systems’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See ec.europa.eu.

  2. See nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/convergent.jsp.

  3. See uts.edu.au/isf/explore-research/projects/adaptive-communities-nodes-preparing-future-flux.

  4. See beta.nsf.gov/tip/latest.

  5. Although Figure 1 presents convergence and divergence stages in Convergence Research as linear processes (with the phases A through D occurring sequentially), Roco’s description of the Convergence Research model is steeped in references to dynamic feedbacks and complex adaptive systems.

References

  • Abbott, Dina, and Heather Cherie Moore. 2012. “Interdisciplinary Methodologies for Investigation into the ‘Lived Experiences’ of Climate Change.” In Climate Change: From Science to Lived Experience. United Kingdom: The Open University.

  • Abrams, David B. 2006. Applying Transdisciplinary Research Strategies to Understanding and Eliminating Health Disparities. Health Education & Behavior 33(4): 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. The Art and Science of Mess Management. Interfaces 11(1): 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, Gautam. 2000. Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, William Ross. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, Pierre, Joshua S. Graff, and Zivin, and Gustavo Manso. 2011. Incentives and Creativity: Evidence from the Academic Life Sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baets, Walter, ed. 2005. Knowledge Management and Management Learning: Extending the Horizons of Knowledge-Based Management. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, William S., and Mihail C. Roco, eds. 2016a. Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07052-0.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge, William S., and Mihail C. Roco. 2016b. Science and Technology Convergence: With Emphasis for Nanotechnology-Inspired Convergence. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 18(7): 211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3520-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bammer, Gabriele. 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-World Problems. Acton, Australia: ANU Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bammer, Gabriele, Michael O’Rourke, Deborah O’Connell, Linda Neuhauser, Gerald Midgley, Julie Thompson Klein, Nicola J. Grigg, Howard Gadlin, Ian R. Elsum, Marcel Bursztyn, Elizabeth A. Fulton, Christian Pohl, Michael Smithson, Ulli Vilsmaier, Matthias Bergmann, Jill Jaeger, Femke Merkx, Bianca Vienni Baptista, Mark A. Burgman, Daniel H. Walker, John Young, Hilary Bradbury, Lynn Crawford, Budi Haryanto, Chaaim Pachanee, Merritt Polk, and George P. Richardson. 2020. Expertise in Research Integration and Implementation for Tackling Complex Problems: When Is It Needed, Where Can It Be Found and How Can It Be Strengthened?. Palgrave Communications 6(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, Stephen R. 1990. The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 61–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battram, Arthur. 1999. Navigating Complexity: The Essential Guide to Complexity Theory in Business and Management. Spiro Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Suzanne T. 2007. Deep-Level Composition Variables as Predictors of Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3): 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Suzanne T., Anton J. Villado, Marc A. Lukasik, Larisa Belau, and Andrew L. Briggs. 2011. Getting Specific about Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Management 37(3): 709–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2011. The Mechanisms of Collaboration in Inventive Teams: Composition, Social Networks, and Geography. Special Section on Heterogeneity and University-Industry Relations 40(1): 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, Matthias, Julie Thompson Klein, and Ronald C Faust. 2012. Methods for Transdisciplinary Research: A Primer for Practice. Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix Mansilla,Veronica, Michele Lamont, and Kyoko Sato. 2016. Shared Cognitive–Emotional–Interactional Platforms: Markers and Conditions for Successful Interdisciplinary Collaborations. Science, Technology, & Human Values 41(4): 571–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915614103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, Geoffrey C., Stefan Timmermans, Adele E. Clarke, and Ellen Balka. 2016. The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. In Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, 243–59. MIT Press. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7580246.

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Elizabeth Corley. 2004. Scientists’ Collaboration Strategies: Implications for Scientific and Technical Human Capital. Scientific and Technical Human Capital: Science Careers and Networks as Knowledge Assets 33(4): 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brondízio, Eduardo. 2017. Interdisciplinarity as Collaborative Problem Framing. ITEMS: Insights from the Social Sciences [Social Science Research Council). http://items.ssrc.org/interdisciplinarity-as-collaborative-problem-framing/.

  • Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, Gibson, and Gareth Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315242804

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, Ronald S. 2004. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candela, Leonardo, Donatella Castelli, and Pasquale Pagano. 2013. Data Interoperability. Data Science Journal 12(July). https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.GRDI-004.

  • Cannon-Bowers, Janis A., Eduardo Salas, and Sharolyn Converse. 1993. Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision Making. In Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  • Carlile, Paul R. 2002. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science 13(4): 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 2001. Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Measuring Convergence in Science and Engineering: Proceedings of a Workshop. Edited by Shadya Sanders. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26040.

  • Crow, Michael M., and Barry Bozeman. 1998. Limited by Design: R & D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System. New York: Perseus Books LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, Michael M., and William B. Dabars. 2015. A New Model for the American Research University. Issues in Science and Technology 31(3): 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, Linus, and Daniel A. McFarland. 2013. Ties That Last: Tie Formation and Persistence in Research Collaborations over Time. Administrative Science Quarterly 58(1): 69–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212474272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N., and Olaf Helmer. 1963. An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Management Science 9(3): 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, Frank R. C., Lindred L. Greer, and Karen A. Jehn. 2012. The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 37(2): 360–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, Tereza, Haisu Zhang, and Yazhen Xiao. 2022. The Role of Complexity in the Valley of Death and Radical Innovation Performance. Technovation 109(January): 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, André L., and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1971. A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7(4): 466–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, André L., Andrew H. Van de Ven, and David H. Gustafson. 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview: Scott Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2017. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ippolito, Beatrice, and Charles-Clemens Ruling. 2019. Research Collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration Types and Policy Implications. Research Policy 48(5): 1282–1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Bryan D., Eric Anthony Day, Winfred Arthur, and Suzanne T. Bell. 2006. Relationships among Team Ability Composition, Team Mental Models, and Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efstathiou, Sophia. 2016. Is It Possible to Give Scientific Solutions to Grand Challenges? On the Idea of Grand Challenges for Life Science Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part c: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56(April): 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Filipe M. Santos. 2002. Knowledge-Based View: A New Theory of Strategy? In Handbook of Strategy and Management, eds. Andrew Pettigrew, Howard Thomas, and Richard Whittington, 139–164. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608313.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg, Jan, Morten Fosaas, and Koson Sapprasert. 2012. Innovation: Exploring the Knowledge Base. Exploring the Emerging Knowledge Base of “The Knowledge Society” 41(7): 1132–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, Riccardo, Markus Perkmann, and Jan-Michael Ross. 2022. Attention to Exploration: The Effect of Academic Entrepreneurship on the Production of Scientifiic Knowledge. Organization Science 33 (2): 688–715. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Nick J. 2011. Boundary Objects, Social Meanings and the Success of New Technologies. Sociology 45(1): 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, Robert, ed. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.3.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the Post-normal Age. Futures 25(7): 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallini, Nancy, and Suzanne Scotchmer. 2002. Intellectual Property: When is it the Best Incentive System? Innovation Policy and the Economy 2: 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, Frank W. 2004. From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory. Research Policy 33(6): 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomin, Joseph. 2014. What is Human Centered Design? The Design Journal 17(4): 606–623. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630614X14056185480186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, and Simon Schwartzman. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glinyanova, Maria, Ricarda B. Bouncken, Victor Tiberius, and Antonio C. Cuenca Ballester. 2021. Five Decades of Corporate Entrepreneurship Research: Measuring and Mapping the Field. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 17(4): 1731–1757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Kara L., Annie X. Feng, Richard P. Moser, Daniel Stokols, and Brandie K. Taylor. 2008a. Moving the Science of Team Science Forward. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2): S243–S249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Kara L., Daniel Stokols, Richard P. Moser, Brandie K. Taylor, Mark D. Thornquist, Linda C. Nebeling, Carolyn C. Ehret, et al. 2008b. The Collaboration Readiness of Transdisciplinary Research Teams and Centers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2): S161–S172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, David A., Kenneth H. Price, and Myrtle P. Bell. 1998. Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, David M. 2020. Oases in the Valley of Death. Nature Energy 5: 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Rebecca A. 1995. Improving Group Judgment Accuracy: Information Sharing and Determining the Best Member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62(2): 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiatt, R.A., and N. Breen. 2008. The Social Determinants of Cancer: A Challenge for Transdisciplinary Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2): S141–S150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, Diana, and J. Sylvan Katz. 2011. Equity and Excellence in Research Funding. Minerva 49(2): 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9170-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, Holger Hoffmann-Riem, Susette Biber-Klemm, Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Dominique Joye, Christian Pohl, Urs Wiesmann, and Elisabeth Zemp. 2008. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Bern, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_26.

  • Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. What Is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration. Synthese 190(11): 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, John H., and John H. Miller. 1991. Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory. The American Economic Review 81(2): 365–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, John. 1996. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, Sujin K., and Irwin B. Horwitz. 2007. The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management 33(6): 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, John, and Hanan F. Khazragui. 2013. Into the Valley of Death: Research to Innovation. Drug Discovery Today 18(13): 610–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.01.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, Katri, Julie Thompson Klein, Henrik Bruun, and Janne Hukkinen. 2010. Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators. Research Policy 39(1): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEO. 2015. The Field Guide to Human Centered Design, 1st ed. San Francisco: Design Kit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intarakumnerd, Patarapong, and Akira Goto. 2018. Role of Public Research Institutes in National Innovation Systems in Industrialized Countries: The Cases of Fraunhofer, NIST, CSIRO, AIST, and ITRI. Data Research Policy 47(7): 1309–1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Jerry A. 2014. In Defense of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, Karen A. 1997. A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 530–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, Robert, and Heiko Prange. 2004. The Reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems—The Example of German Biotechnology. Research Policy 33(3): 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Sarah, and Mary Tripsas. 2008. Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change. Research Policy 37(5): 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, Susan Patricia, and Paula S. Nurius. 2015. Preparing Emerging Doctoral Scholars for Transdisciplinary Research: A Developmental Approach. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 35(1–2): 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.980929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernick, David. 2004. Complexity and Healthcare Organization: A View from the Street. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessel, F., P.L. Rosenfield, and N.B. Anderson. 2008. Interdisciplinary Research: Case Studies from Health and Social Science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiel, L. Douglas. 1994. Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for Managing Change, Innovation, and Organizational Renewal. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee, Robert. 1997. Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at Its Seams, vol. 110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Gary A. 1998a. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 1998b. “Notes Toward a Social Epistemology of Transdisciplinarity.” Centre International De Recherches Et Études Transdisciplinaires. 1998b. https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c2.php#.

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 2017. Typologies of Interdisciplinarity: The Boundary Work of Definition. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, vol. 1, 2nd ed., ed. Robert Frodeman. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.3.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 2021. Beyond Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work, Communication, and Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson, Rudolf Häberli, Roland W. Scholz, Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Bill Alain, and Myrtha Welti, eds. 2001. Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. Schwerpunktprogramm Umwelt Programme Prioritaire Environnement Priority Programme Environment. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Basel.

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 2023. Boundary Discourse of Crossdisciplinary and Cross-Sector Research: Refiguring the Landscape of Science. Minerva 61(1): 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09474-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson, and Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski. 2017. Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Work: Framing Promotion and Tenure Practices and Policies. Research Policy 46(6): 1055–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolarz, Peter, Paul G. Simmonds, Oliver Cassagneau-Francis, Helena Kovacs, Tammy Sharp, and Martin Wain. 2015. Innovation by Design—How Design Enables Science and Technology Research to Achieve Greater Impact. London: Design Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 2000. The Road Since Structure. Edited by James Conant and John Haugeland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kumar, V. 2017. The Role of University Research Centers in Promoting Research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45(4): 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0496-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, Imre. 2015. Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery. Edited by John Worrall and Elie Zahar. Cambridge Philosophy Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316286425.

  • Lakhina, Shefali, Elaina Sutley, and Jay Wilson. 2021. ‘How Do We Actually do Convergence’ for Disaster Resilience? Cases from Australia and the United States. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00340-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, David PM., Berta Martín-López, Arnim Wiek, Elena M. Bennett, Niki Frantzeskaki, Andra I. Horcea-Milcu, and Daniel J. Lang. 2020. Scaling the Impact of Sustainability Initiatives: A Typology of Amplification Processes. Urban Transformations 2(1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37(2): 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, Daniel J., Arnim Wiek, Matthias Bergmann, Michael Stauffacher, Pim Martens, Peter Moll, Mark Swilling, and Christopher M. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7 (Suppl 1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

  • Laursen, Bethany K. 2018. What Is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Science Research. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 21: 75–106. https://doi.org/10.28945/4010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, Bethany, and Michael O’Rourke. 2019. Thinking with Klein About Integration. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 37: 33–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, Bethany K., Nicole Motzer, and Kelly J. Anderson. 2022. Pathways for Assessing Interdisciplinarity: A Systematic Review. Research Evaluation 31 (3): 326–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legatt, Aviva. 2019. Five Amazing College Incubators. Forbes, January 7, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivalegatt/2019/01/07/launch-your-startup-at-these-five-college-incubators/?sh=2c5f9c2d4a77.

  • LePine, Jeffery A. 2003. Team Adaptation and Postchange Performance: Effects of Team Composition in Terms of Members’ Cognitive Ability and Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet. 2010. The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 44(1): 365–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2010.1440440116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Jianguo, Harold Mooney, Vanessa Hull, Steven J. Davis, Joanne Gaskell, Thomas Hertel, Jane Lubchenco, et al. 2015. Systems Integration for Global Sustainability. Science 347(6225): 1258832. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R., Trudy R. Mallinson, Tommy Leblanc-Beaudoin, Lisa S. Schwartz, Danielle Lazar, and Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski. 2016. Individual Motivation and Threat Indicators of Collaboration Readiness in Scientific Knowledge Producing Teams: A Scoping Review and Domain Analysis. Heliyon 2(5): e00105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R., and Shalini Misra. 2020. Transdisciplinary Knowledge Producing Teams: Toward a Complex Systems Perspective. Communication in Transdisciplinary Teams 21: 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna-Reyes, Luis F., Laura J. Black, Weijia Ran, Deborah Lines Andersen, Holly Jarman, George P. Richardson, and David F. Andersen. 2019. Modeling and Simulation as Boundary Objects to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 36(4): 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, Catherine, Paul Lant, and George Mellick. 2006. Imagining an Interdisciplinary Doctoral Pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education 11(3): 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manjunatha, S., and Basava Annappa. 2020. Real-Time Big Data Analytics Framework with Data Blending Approach for Multiple Data Sources in Smart City Applications. Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience 21(4): 611–623. https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v21i4.1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, David, Gabriele Bammer, and Peter Deane. 2009. Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. Acton, Australia: ANU Press. http://www-jstor-org.proxy.lib.ohiostate.edu/stable/j.ctt24hb0t.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Melville-Richards, Lucy, Joanne Rycroft-Malone, Christopher Burton, and Joyce Wilkinson. 2020. Making Authentic: Exploring Boundary Objects and Bricolage in Knowledge Mobilisation through National Health Service-University Partnerships. Evidence & Policy 16(4): 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426419X15623134271106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, Shalini, Kara Hall, Annie Feng, Brooke Stipelman, and Daniel Stokols. 2011. Collaborative Processes in Transdisciplinary Research”. In Converging Disciplines, eds. Maritt Kirst, Nicole Schaefer-McDaniel, Stephen Hwang, and Patricia O’Campo, 97–110. New York: Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6330-7_8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, Shalini, Daniel Stokols, and Lulu Cheng. 2016. The Transdisciplinary Orientation Scale: Factor Structure and Relation to the Integrative Quality and Scope of Scientific Publications. Journal of Translational Medical Epidemiology 3(2): 1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, Edgar. 2008. On Complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2019. Fostering the Culture of Convergence in Research: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25271.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Measuring Convergence in Science and Engineering: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26040

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2014. Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond. Washington: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18722.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2009. A New Biology for the 21st Century. Washington: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12764.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). 2011. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. Washington: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13284.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2014. Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18722.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (NSF). 2017a. Convergence Research at NSF. https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/convergence/index.jsp.

  • National Science Foundation (NSF). 2017b. Dear Colleague Letter: Growing Convergence Research. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18058/nsf18058.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click.

  • National Science Foundation (NSF). n.d. Growing Convergence Research. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/convergent.jsp.

  • National Science Foundation (NSF). n.d. NSF’s 10 Big Ideas. Accessed 3 April 2021. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas/.

  • Neuhauser, L., D. Richardson, S. Mackenzie, and M. Minkler. 2007. Advancing Transdisciplinary and Translational Research Practice: Issues and Models of Doctoral Education in Public Health. Journal of Research Practice 3(2): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolescu, B. 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. SUNY Series in Western Esoteric Traditions. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolescu, B. 2008. Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice. Cresskill: Hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norström, Albert, Christopher Cvitanovic, Marie Löf, Simon West, Carina Wyborn, Patricia Balvanera, Angela Bednarek, et al. 2020. Principles for Knowledge Co-Production in Sustainability Research. Nature Sustainability 3(January). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2.

  • O’Neill, Thomas A., and Natalie J. Allen. 2014. Team Task Conflict Resolution: An Examination of Its Linkages to Team Personality Composition and Team Effectiveness Outcomes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 18(2): 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, Thomas A., Natalie J. Allen, and Stephanie E. Hastings. 2013. Examining the ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ of Team Con Flict: A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict. Human Performance 26(3): 236–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, Michael, Stephen Crowley, and Chad Gonnerman. 2016. On the Nature of Cross-Disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part c: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56(April): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, Michael, Stephen Crowley, Bethany Laursen, Brian Robinson, and Stephanie E. Vasko. 2019. Disciplinary Diversity in Teams: Integrative Approaches from Unidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity. In Strategies for Team Science Success: Handbook of Evidence-Based Principles for Cross-Disciplinary Science and Practical Lessons Learned from Health Researchers, eds. Kara L. Hall, Amanda L. Vogel, and Robert T. Croyle, 21–46. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325(5939): 419. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, Scott. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, Margaret A., Jonathan G. Kramer, James Boyd, and David Hawthorne. 2016. Practices for Facilitating Interdisciplinary Synthetic Research: The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19(April): 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Dawn C., Steven M. Manson, Marco A. Janssen, Matthew J. Hoffmann, and Peter Deadman. 2003. Multi-Agent Systems for the Simulation of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: A Review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(2): 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9302004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, John N., and Edward J. Hackett. 2012. Hot Spots and Hot Moments in Scientific Collaborations and Social Movements. American Sociological Review 77(1): 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411433763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 2011. Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peek, Lori, Jennifer Tobin, Rachel M. Adams, Wu Haorui, and Mason Clay Mathews. 2020. A Framework for Convergence Research in the Hazards and Disaster Field: The Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure CONVERGE Facility. Frontiers in Built Environment 6(July): 110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piso, Zachary. 2016. Out of the Fog: Catalyzing Integrative Capacity in Interdisciplinary Research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian. 2005. Transdisciplinary Collaboration in Environmental Research. Futures 37(10): 1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian. 2010. From Transdisciplinarity to Transdisciplinary Research. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science. https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, and Gertrude H. Hadorn. 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Munich, Germany: Oekom.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, Dena Fam, Sabine Hoffmann, and Cynthia Mitchell. 2019. Exploring Julie Thompson Klein’s Framework for Analysis of Boundary Work. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 37(2): 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, Lorrae van Kerkhoff, Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn, and Gabriele Bammer. 2008. Integration. In Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, eds. Getrude Hirsch Hadorn, Holger Hoffmann-Riem, Susette Biber-Klemm, Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Dominique Joye, Christian Pohl, Urs Wiesmann, and Elisabeth Zemp. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_27.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, Bernhard Truffer, and Gertrude Hirsch-Hadorn. 2017. Addressing Wicked Problems through Transdisciplinary Research. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, vol. 15, 2nd ed., ed. Robert Frodeman. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, Christian, Julie Thompson Klein, Sabine Hoffmann, Cynthia Mitchell, and Dena Fam. 2021. Conceptualising Transdisciplinary Integration as a Multidimensional Interactive Process. Environmental Science & Policy 118(April): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, Danielle, Suzanne Allard, An Yan, and Michelle Parker. 2019. The Role of Data & Synthesis Centers in Convergence Research. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56(January): 745–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Kenneth H. 1985. Problem-Solving Strategies: A Comparison by Problem-Solving Phases. Group & Organization Studies 10(3): 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, Darryn. 2021. Capitalising on Incommensurability. Integration and Implementation Insights (blog). March 30, 2021. https://i2insights.org/2021/03/30/capitalising-on-incommensurability/.

  • Richardson, Kurt, and P. Cilliers. 2001. What is Complexity Science? A View from Different Directions. Emergence 3(April): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327000EM0301_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, Horst W.J.., and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, David W., Douglas K. Martin, and Peter A. Singer. 2003. Interdisciplinary Research: Putting the Methods Under the Microscope. BMC Medical Research Methodology 3(1): 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C. 2002. Coherence and Divergence of Megatrends in Science and Engineering. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 4: 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C. 2003. Converging Science and Technology at the Nanoscale: Opportunities for Education and Training. Nature Biotechnology 21(10): 1247–1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1003-1247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C. 2016. Principles and Methods That Facilitate Convergence. In Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence, eds. William S. Bainbridge and Mihail C. Roco. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07052-0.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C. 2020. Principles of Convergence in Nature and Society and Their Application: From Nanoscale, Digits, and Logic Steps to Global Progress. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 22(11): 321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-020-05032-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C., and William S. Bainbridge. 2013. The New World of Discovery, Invention, and Innovation: Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15(9): 1946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1946-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C., William S. Bainbridge, Bruce Tonn, and George Whitesides, eds. 2013. Convergence of Knowledge, Technology and Society: Beyond Convergence of Nano-bio-info-cognitive Technologies: Beyond Convergence of Nano-bio-info-cognitive Technologies. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C., and Carlo D. Montemagno, eds. 2004. The Coevolution of Human Potential and Converging Technologies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York Academy of Sciences. https://books.google.com/books?id=0YVFAAAAYAAJ.

  • Rosenfield, P.L. 1992. The Potential of Transdisciplinary Research for Sustaining and Extending Linkages between Health and the Social Sciences. Social Science & Medicine 35(11): 1343–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A. Wendy, Fern Wickson, and Anna L. Carew. 2008. Transdisciplinarity: Context, Contradictions and Capacity. Futures 40(5): 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, Ian. 2000. Evaluation in Complex Policy Systems. Evaluation 6(4): 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrao-Neumann, Silvia, Fabiano de Araújo Moreira, Michele Dalla Fontana, Roger Rodrigues Torres, David Montenegro Lapola, Lucí Hidalgo Nunes, Jose Antonio Marengo, and Gabriela Marques Di Giulio. 2021. Advancing Transdisciplinary Adaptation Research Practice. Nature Climate Change 11(12): 1006–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01221-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Phillip. A., Charles L. Cooney, Marc A. Kastner, Jacqueline Lees, Ram Sassisekharan, Michael B. Yaffe, Sangeeta N. Bhatia, Tyler E. Jacks, Douglas A. Lauffenburger, Robert 0Langer, Paula T. Hammond, and Mriganka Sur. 2011. The Third Revolution: The Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering. Washington, DC: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Phillip A., Susan Hockfield, and Tyler Jacks. 2016. Convergence: The Future of Health. Cambridge: CovergenceRevolution.net.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Phillip A., and Richard Langer. 2011. Promoting Convergence in Biomedical Science. Science 333(6042): 527–527. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, Wesley, Joel Genuth, and Ivan Chompalov. 2007. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, Ralph. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, Daniel, Kara L. Hall, Brandie K. Taylor, and Richard P. Moser. 2008a. The Science of Team Science: Origins and Themes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2): S77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, Daniel, Shalini Misra, Richard P. Moser, Kara L. Hall, and Brandie K. Taylor. 2008b. The Ecology of Team Science: Understanding Contextual Influences on Transdisciplinary Collaboration. The Science of Team Science 35(2, Supplement): S96–S115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strengers, Yolande. 2014. Smart Energy in Everyday Life: Are You Designing for Resource Man? Interactions 21(4): 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2621931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Soyoung, Yanghoon Kim, and Hangbae Chang. 2015. An Exploratory Research on Future ICT Convergence Research Design in Smart Sensor Environment. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 11(9): 741616. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/741616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, Andrew H., Douglas Polley, Raghu Garud, and Sankaran Venkataraman. 1999. The Innovation Journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderford, Nathan. 2012. Broadening PhD Curricula. Nature Biotechnology 30(January): 113–114. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Krogh, Georg, Kazuo Ichijo, and Ikujiro Nonaka. 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195126167.001.0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, Riveraine S., Erin S. Kenzie, Alexander E. Metzger, William Jesse Baltutis, Kakali B. Chakrabarti, Shana Lee Hirsch, and Bethany K. Laursen. 2019. A Systems Thinking Approach for Eliciting Mental Models from Visual Boundary Objects in Hydropolitical Contexts: A Case Study from the Pilcomayo River Basin. Ecology and Society 24(2): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10586-240209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yülek, Murat Â, and Hong-yŏl Han. 2017. Industrial, Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in South Korea and Japan. Bern: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zhironkin, Sergey, Michal Cehlar, and Vitaly Zhironkin. 2019. The Convergent Structural Base of Sustainable Development in the 21st Century. In E3S Web of Conferences, vol. 134, ed. A. Khoreshok, V. Atrushkevich, S. Vöth, D. Nuray, J. Janocko, Y. Tan, D. Marasová, P. Stefanek, and M. Petrova, 03013. EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201913403013.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zierdt, Ginger LuAnne. 2009. Responsibility-Centred Budgeting: An Emerging Trend in Higher Education Budget Reform. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31(4): 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800903191971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors. The research for this paper was supported, in part, by the National Science Foundation (NSF Grant #2038232).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, 1810 College Rd, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Lisa C. Gajary & Anand Desai

  2. Caspian Strategy & Analytics LLC, Dublin, OH, 43017, USA

    Lisa C. Gajary

  3. School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, VTRC Office 5-182 (MC0804), 900 N Glebe Rd, Arlington, VA, 22203, USA

    Shalini Misra

  4. Clarivate, 1900 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA

    Anand Desai & Joshua D. Schnell

  5. National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA

    Dean M. Evasius

  6. Westat, 1600 Research Blvd, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    Joy Frechtling, Gary Silverstein & John Wells

  7. Clarivate, Institute for Scientific Information, 70 St Mary Axe, London, EC3A 8BE, England, UK

    David A. Pendlebury

Authors
  1. Lisa C. Gajary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shalini Misra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anand Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dean M. Evasius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joy Frechtling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David A. Pendlebury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joshua D. Schnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gary Silverstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa C. Gajary.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gajary, L.C., Misra, S., Desai, A. et al. Convergence Research as a ‘System-of-Systems’: A Framework and Research Agenda. Minerva (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09503-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09503-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation