Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme
Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003
复制
发表时间：
2004-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Williams, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bruce, A;Lyall, C;Williams, R
本文介绍了欧盟第五框架计划（FP5）的研究人员和研究管理人员参与的经验，其雄心勃勃的鼓励更综合的面向问题的研究方法的调查。我们使用了一系列的研讨会，问卷调查，个别电话采访和六个详细的案例研究，以检查在何种程度上，这些雄心勃勃的“跨学科融合”正在满足和所涉及的问题。确定了各种学科整合模式，这些模式可能适合特定环境。虽然我们发现令人不安的少数项目，似乎我们的标准是明确的跨学科，特别是在跨越自然科学和社会科学之间的边界，我们确实发现了大量的学习发生在如何进行跨学科研究和如何克服遇到的一些困难。研究人员特别强调了谨慎的联盟发展和团队建设作为有效跨学科研究基础的重要性，以及在不同专业之间建立有效沟通所需的时间和精力。本文件确定了学科间合作的障碍，并确定了一些战略和措施，通过这些战略和措施，可以最好地确保更密切的一体化及其相关利益。(C)2004爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
This paper describes an investigation into the experience of researchers and research managers involved in the European Union Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) with its ambitious encouragement of more integrated problem-oriented approaches to research. We used a series of workshops, a questionnaire survey, individual telephone interviews and six detailed case studies to examine the extent to which these ambitious for 'interdisciplinary integration' were being met and the issues involved. Various models of disciplinary integration were identified, which may be appropriate in particular settings. Whilst we found disappointingly few projects that seemed by our criteria to be clearly interdisciplinary, particularly in crossing the boundary between natural and social sciences, we did find a great deal of learning taking place about how to conduct interdisciplinary research and how to overcome some of the difficulties experienced. Researchers emphasised in particular the importance of careful consortium development and team building as a basis for effective interdisciplinary research, and the time and effort needed to establish effective communication between different specialisms. The paper identifies barriers to collaboration between disciplines and some strategies and measures through which closer integration, and its associated benefits, might best be secured. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.