'Interdisciplinary strategies' in U.S. research universities

Higher Education

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 537-552

  Sá, Creso M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Interdisciplinary research; Organizational change; Organizational strategies; Organized research units; Research centers and institutes; Research universities

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149099977     PISSN: 00181560     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. AAU - Association of American Universities. (2005). Report of the interdisciplinarity task force. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Abbott, A. (2001). The chaos of disciplines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3. Alpert, D. (1985). Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the American research university. Journal of Higher Education, 56, 241-281.
4. Blau, P. M. (1994). The organization of academic work (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
5. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2003). Managing the new Multipurpose, Multidiscipline University Research Centers: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
6. Brint, S. (2005). Creating the future: 'New directions' in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1), 23-50.
7. Burns, L. R. (1989). Matrix management in hospitals: Testing theories of matrix structure and development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 349-368.
8. Caruso, D. & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: Sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity-A new mechanism for knowledge production and re-integration in the age of information. Hybrid Vigor White Paper. Retrieved from www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/ hv_pub_interdis-2001.04.30.pdf.
9. Clark, B. (1984). The organizational conception. In B. Clark (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education: Eight disciplinary perspectives and comparative views (pp. 106-131). Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Clark, B. (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11. Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research. Higher Education, 32(4), 417-430.
12. Clark, B. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. New York: Open University Press.
13. Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14. Duke University. (2004). The Duke University faculty handbook. Durham, NC: Author.
15. Epton, S. R., Payne, R. L., & Pearson, A.W. (1985). Contextual issues in managing cross-disciplinary research. In B. Mars, W. Newell, & B. Saxberg (Eds.), Managing high technology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 209-229). New York: Elsevier.
16. Ehrenberg, R. G., Rizzo, M. & Jakubson, G. (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? Paper presented at CHERI's 2003 Conference, Ithaca, NY.
17. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109-121.
18. Feller, I. (2002). New organizations, old cultures: Strategy and implementation of interdisciplinary programs. Research Evaluation, 11, 109-116.
19. Feller, I. (2004). Whither interdisciplinarity (in an era of strategic planning)? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, WA.
20. Feller, I. (2005). Who races with whom; Who is likely to win (or survive); Why. Paper presented at the symposium The Future of the American Public Research University, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
21. Feller, I. (2006). Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: Issues in assessing interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 15, 5-15.
22. Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. C. (1982). The role of university organized research units in academic science. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education, Center for the Study of Science Policy, Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.
23. Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. C. (1986). Sponsorship, organization and program change at 100 universities. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation Center for the Study of Science Policy.
24. Gailbraith, J. (1971). Matrix organization designs: How to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons, 14, 29-40.
25. Gailbraith, J. (1972). Organization design: An information processing view. In J. W. Lorsch & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), Organization planning: Cases and concepts (pp. 49-74). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
26. Geiger, R. L. (1990). Organized Research Units - Their role in the development of university research. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 1-19.
27. Geiger, R. L. (2004). To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900-1940. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
28. Geiger, R. L., & Sá, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43, 1-21.
29. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
30. Hackett, E. J. (2000). Interdisciplinary research initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 248-259). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
31. Hollingsworth, J. R., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (2000). Major discoveries in biomedical research organizations: Perspectives on interdisciplinarity, nurturing leadership, integrated structures and cultures. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 215-244). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
32. Ikenberry, S., & Friedman, R. (1972). Beyond academic departments: The story of institutes and centers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Jenks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
34. Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143-163). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
35. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
36. Kolodny, H. F. (1979). Evolution to a matrix organization. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 543-553.
37. Kruytbosch, C. E. (1970). The organization of research in the university: The case of research personnel. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
38. Lamont, M., Mallard, G., & Guetzkow, J. (2006). Beyond blind faith: Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15, 43-55.
39. Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflicts of interest and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15, 31-41.
40. Larson, E. W., & Gobeli, D. H. (1987). Matrix management: Contradictions and insights. California Management Review, 29, 126-138.
41. Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
42. Mallon, W., & Bunton, S. (2005). Characteristics of research centers and institutes at U.S. medical schools and universities. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.
43. Mallon, W. (2006). The benefits and challenges of research centers and institutes in academic medicine: Findings from six universities and their medical schools. Academic Medicine, 81, 502-512.
44. Mansilla, V., Feller, I., & Gardner, H. (2006). Quality assessments in interdisciplinary research and education. Research Evaluation, 15, 69-74.
45. Meyer, H. & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
46. National Academies. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47. Pennsylvania State University. (2002). Office of the Vice President for Research strategic plan 2002-2005. University Park, PA: Author.
48. Pennsylvania State University. (2005). Office of the Vice President for Research strategic plan 2005-2008. University Park, PA: Author.
49. Powers, J. (2000). The use of institutional incentive grants for strategic change in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 281-298.
50. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Rhoades, G. (2000). Who's doing it right? Strategic activity in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 41-66.
52. Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report National Science Foundation BCS-0129573 - A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.hybridvigor.net/ interdis/pubs /hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf.
53. Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items & Issues, 5, 6-11.
54. Roberts, J. A. (2004). Riding the momentum: Interdisciplinary research centers to interdisciplinary graduate programs. In M. Rice (Ed.), Riding the momentum of research: Leadership challenges in public research universities (pp. 73-82). MASC Report No. 108. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
55. Sá, C. (2006). Interdisciplinary Strategies at Research-Intensive Universities. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
56. Sá, C. (2007). Planning for interdisciplinary research. Planning for Higher Education, 35(2), 18-28.
57. Stahler, G. J., & Tash, W. R. (1994). Centers and institutes in the research university -Issues, problems, and prospects. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 540-554.
58. Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 46-65). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
59. University of Southern California. (2005). Guidelines of the University Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
60. University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2003). Report of the ad hoc advisory committee to evaluate the Cluster Hiring Initiative. Madison, WI: Author.
61. University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2007). Cluster Hiring Initiative Evaluation Report 2006-2007. Draft manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.provost.wisc.edu/clusterconference/report.html.
62. Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25-41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
64. Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.