Advertisement

A T-shaped Measure of Multidisciplinarity in Academic Research Networks: The GRAND Case Study

  • David Turner
  • Diego Serrano
  • Eleni Stroulia
  • Kelly Lyons
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Service-science research has long been studying T-shapedness, arguing that service scientists should be T-shaped individuals, deeply knowledgeable in one field and able to collaborate and communicate across disciplines. The value of multidisciplinarity has also been recognized in academic environments, as funding agencies are committing substantial support to large-scale research initiatives that span across disciplines, organizations, academia and industry, even across national borders, and aim to address the major challenges of our time, from climate change, to energy shortage, to pandemics. New incentives and performance indicators are needed to encourage and reward multidisciplinary collaborative work. In this paper, we introduce a metric for multidisciplinarity, based on the notion of T-shapedness and we report on the application of this measure on data collected over four years from the GRAND Network of Centres of Excellence, a large-scale, Canadian, multidisciplinary research network conducting research on digital media with numerous academic and industrial partners. We describe our findings on how the community evolved over time in terms of its T-shaped multidisciplinarity and compare the multidisciplinarity of GRAND researchers to their non-GRAND peers.

References

  1. 1.
    Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century: a review. J Inform. 2008;2(1):1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bar-Ilan J, Sugimoto C, Gunn W, Haustein S, Konkiel S, Lariviere V, Lin J. Altmetrics: present and future. In: Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T annual meeting: beyond the cloud: rethinking information boundaries. 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown T. T-shaped stars: the backbone of IDEO’s collaborative culture. Morten Hansen, chiefexecutive.net; 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummings J, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci. (Sage Publications) 2005;35(5):703–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demirkan H, Spohrer J. Commentary—cultivating T-shaped professionals in the era of digital transformation. J Serv Sci. (INFORMS) 2018;10(1):98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donofrio N, Spohrer J, Zadeh H. Research-driven medical education and practice: a case for T-shaped professional. MJA Viewpoint. Collegiate Employment Research Institute; 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guest D. The hunt is on for the Renaissance Man of computing. Independent. (London) 1991;17.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huutoniemi K, Klein J, Brunn H, Huukinen J. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. J Res Policy. (Elsevier) 2010;39(1):79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iansiti M. Real-world R&D: jumping the product generation gap. Harvard business School Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oskam I. T-shaped engineers for interdisciplinary innovation: an attractive perspective for young people as well as a must for innovative organisations. In: 37th annual conference—attracting students in engineering, vol 14. 2009.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Porter A, Cohen A, Roessner D, Perreault M. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics. (Springer Science + Business Media BV) 2007;72(1):117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics. Springer(Springer) 2010;82(2):263–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stirling A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface. (The Royal Society) 2007;4(15):707–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagner C, Roessner J, Bobb K, Klein J, Boyack K, Keyton J, Rafols I, Borner K. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Inform. (Elsevier) 2011;5(1):14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu J, Zou X, Kong H. Cultivating T-shaped engineers for 21st century: experiences in China. In: 2012 ASEE annual conference & exposition. 2012. p. 25–372.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yegros A, Amat C, D’Este P, Porter A, Rafols I. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher scientific impact. In: STI indicators conference, Leiden. 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Turner
    • 1
  • Diego Serrano
    • 1
  • Eleni Stroulia
    • 1
  • Kelly Lyons
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations