Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: Issues in assessing interdisciplinary research

Research Evaluation

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 5-15

  Feller, Irwin ^a,b  

^a AAAS   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749619157     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154406781776020     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. AAAS 2004. Defense and homeland security R&D hit new highs in 2005; growth slows for other agencies. AAAS R&D Funding Update, 29 November.
2. AAAS 2004 available at 〈http:www.aaas.org/spp/rd〉, last accessed April 2006.
3. Abrams, P 1991. The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: the case of ecology and the US National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science, 21, 111-132.
4. Allen, M 1990. The "quality" of journals in sociology reconsidered: objective measures of journal influence. Footnotes, 4-5.
5. Brainard, J 2005. NSF redefines research center. Chronicle of Higher Education, 2 September: A31.
6. Brenneis, D 1994. Discourse and discipline at the National Research Council: a bureaucratic Bildungsroman. Cultural Anthropology, 9, 23-36.
7. Brunn, H, J Hukkinen and J Klein Huutoniemi 2005. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Academy of Finland.
8. Bugliarello, G 2000. The interdisciplinary imperative to create new knowledges and uses of knowledge across boundaries of disciplines and institutions. In The Interdisciplinary Imperative, ed. R Roy, pp. 3-20. San Jose, CA: Writers Club Press.
9. Chubin, D and E Hackett 1990. Peerless Science. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10. Clark, B 1995. Places of Inquiry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
11. Cole, S 1992. Making Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 102-136.
12. Collini, S 2003. HiEDBiz. London Review of Books, 6 November, 3-9.
13. Feller, I 2002a. New organizations, old cultures: strategy and implementation of interdisciplinary programs. Research Evaluation, 11(2), August, 109-116.
14. Feller, I 2002b. Performance measurement redux. American Journal of Evaluation.
15. Feller, I 2004. Whither Interdisciplinary in an Era of Strategic Planning. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2004 Annual Meeting.
16. Furner, M 1975. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of Knowledge. Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press.
17. Galison, P 1999. Trading zone: coordinating action and belief. In The Science Studies Reader, ed. M Biagioli, pp. 137-160. New York and London: Routledge.
18. Glimcher, P 2003. Decisions, Uncertainty, and the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
19. Guetzkow, J, M Lamont and G Mallard 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69.
20. Harwood, J 1970. Emergence of the field and early hopes. In Materials Science and Engineering in the United States, ed. R Roy, pp. 11-16. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
21. Hicks, D, H Tomizawa, Y Saitoh and S Kobayashi 2004. Bibliometric evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Research Evaluation, 13(1), April, 78-86.
22. Keller, M and Keller, P 2001. Making Harvard Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Kohler, R 1991. Partners in Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24. Laband, D and M Piette 1994. The relative impact of economics journals 1970-1990. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 640-666.
25. Liefner, I 2003. Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46, 469-489.
26. Mansilla, V and Gardner H 2004. Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration of symptoms of quality. 〈http://www. interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/6〉, last accessed April 2006.
27. Metzger, N and Zare, R 1999. Science policy: interdisciplinary research, from belief to reality. Science, 283, 642-643.
28. NAS, National Academies of Science 2000. Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. NAS, National Academies of Science 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. National Academies-Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable 1994. Stresses in Research and Education at Colleges and Universities: Institutional and Sponsoring Agency Responses. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
31. NRC, National Research Council 2000. Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Funds. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
32. NRC, National Research Council 2003. Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs, ed. J Ostriches and C Uh. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33. NRC-Institute of Medicine 2004. NIH Extramural Center Programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. NSB, National Science Board 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators, Volume 1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
35. Nye, M 1993. From Chemical Philosophy to Theoretical Chemistry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
36. Patton, M 2001. Use as a criterion of quality in evaluation. In Visions of Quality: How Evaluators Define, Understand and Represent Program Quality, ed. A Benson, D Inn and C Lloyd, pp. 155-180. Amsterdam: JAI.
37. Power, M 1997. The Audit Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Reuter, P and J Smith-Ready 2002. Editor's note: assessing JAM after 20 years. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 339-353.
39. Rhoades, G 2002. Who's doing it right? Strategic activity in public research universities. Review of Higher Education, 24, 41-66.
40. Ross, D 2003. Changing contours of the social science disciplines. In The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 7, The Modern Social Sciences, ed. T Porter and D Ross, pp. 208-237. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. Science 2003. NIH plans new grants for innovative minds. Science, 301, 902, 15 August.
42. Servos, J 1990. Physical Chemistry from Ostward to Pauling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43. Shackelford, B 2004. U.S. academic R&D continues to grow as more universities and colleges expand their R&D Activities. INFOBRIEF, NSF-04-319, May.
44. Turner, S 1999. What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In Practicing Interdisciplinary, ed. P Weingart and N Stehr, pp. 46-65. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
45. Van Leeuwen, T N 2004. Descriptive versus evaluative bibliometrics. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, ed. H Moed, W Glanzel and U Schmoch, pp. 373-388. Dordrecht: The Netherlands.
46. Van Leeuwen, T N and R Tijssen 2000. Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation, 9(3), December, 183-188.
47. Van Raan, A 1999. The interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. In Practicing Interdisciplinarity, ed. P Weingart and N Stehr, pp. 66-78. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
48. Van Raan, A and T N van Leeuwen 2002. Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: application of bibliometric methods in nutrition and food research. Research Policy, 31, 611-632.
49. Weingart, P 2005. Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: inadvertent consequences. Scientometrics, 62, 117-131.
50. Wooding, S and J Grant 2003. Assessing Research: The Researcher's View. Report submitted to the Higher Education Funding Council, RAND Europe.