Advertisement

Innovative Collaboration Formation: The National Academies Keck Futures Initiative

  • Anne Heberger MarinoEmail author
  • Kimberly A. Suda-Blake
  • Kenneth R. Fulton
Chapter

Abstract

Founded in 2003 as a 15-year undertaking with generous support from the W. M. Keck Foundation, the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative (NAKFI) occupied a unique space within the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and in the broader landscape of inter- and transdisciplinary research programs. It was one of a myriad of programs, workshops, models, and activities which aim to expand the boundaries about how we view, support, and conduct interdisciplinary science. The program provided collaborative opportunities to nearly 2000 professionals across a broad range of fields and made conceptual and methodological contributions to how team science is fostered and evaluated. This chapter will describe the key features of the NAKFI conference and seed grants program, how it evolved over time, and demonstrate how adaptation and evaluation contributed to the program’s development. It will also explore the strengths and limitations of this approach and address strategies that have been used to overcome challenges during the program’s 15-year duration. Additional information about each of these topics can be found at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25239/..

Keywords

Interdisciplinary research Innovation Team science Collaboration Venture science Seed funding 

References

  1. Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, Haas J, Gebbie KM. Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(1 Pt 1):329–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Arts and Sciences. ARISE 2: Unleashing America’s research & innovation enterprise; 2013. http://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/arise2.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2016.
  3. Choi BC, Pak, AW. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy. Clin Invest Med. 2006; 29(6): 351–64.Google Scholar
  4. Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, Taylor BK, Thornquist MD, Nebeling LC, Ehret CC, Barnett MJ, McTiernan A, Berger NA, Goran MI, Jeffery RW. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC Year-One Evaluation Study. Am J Prevent Med. 2008;35(2 Suppl):S161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Misra S, Harvey R, Stokols D, Pinea KH, Fuqua J, Shokairb SM, Whiteley JM. Evaluating an interdisciplinary undergraduate training program in health promotion research. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(4):358–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. National Research Council. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington. DC: The National Academies Press. 2015. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007.
  7. Porter AL, Roessner JD, Cohen AS, Perreault M. Interdisciplinary research—meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation. 2006;15(3):187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Porter AL, Cohen AS, Roessner JD, Perreault M. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics. 2007;72(1):117–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Porter AL, Roessner, DJ, Heberger AE. How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Res. Eval. 2008;17(4):273–82.  https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X364553.
  10. Rosas SR, Kagan JM, Schouten JT, Slack PA, Trochim WMK. Evaluating research and impact: a bibliometric analysis of research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trial network. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17428.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017428.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosenfield PL. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35:1343–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keyton J, Rafols I, Börner K. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a literature review. J Infomet. 2011;5(1):14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Heberger Marino
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kimberly A. Suda-Blake
    • 1
  • Kenneth R. Fulton
    • 2
  1. 1.The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.National Academy of SciencesWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations