Ok, i seem to be having a bit of technical difficulties in my first posting to this blog…
I was trying to respond in the form of comment/reply…but I don’t think it got through? at least I can’t see it…so, I’m going to try it again here…here goes it…
This post is a response to the call for feedback from members on the topic of interdisciplinary and its relation to KT; the call asked for our thoughts on two questions:
1) What is my definition of interdisciplinary:
Cook-Sather & Shore (2007) define interdisciplinarity “not as bringing together and reifying, even through dialogue, fixed disciplines, but rather as bringing into dialogue differently positioned people [emphasis added] with the goal of drawing on disciplines to create something new.”
This definition resonates with my current understanding of interdisciplinary…and I think my understanding is at least in part influenced by my background in occupational therapy…
Perhaps interestingly?- Occupational Therapy is a practice of physical and psychosocial rehabilitation that is informed by Occupational Science, which I think epitomizes interdisciplinarity, in that, Occupational Science is a field largely informed by various disciplines including psychology, humanities, anthropology, social sciences, health sciences…the Occupational Science field draws knowledge from these various disciplines for the purpose of addressing one broad research area-understanding the process and outcomes of human engagement in meaningful activities.
In a similar fashion, Rehabilitation Sciences, the graduate program I am currently studying in, is also an interdisciplinary field that brings together knowledge from several disciplines including, but not exclusive to: physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, kinesiology, psychology, neurosciences etc. to address questions related to improving the functional capacities and quality of life of people experiencing a variety of disabilities.
Why take an interdisciplinary approach to KT research:
There are a number of reasons, including: 1) I see KT science as a holistic one that embodies process, effectiveness, temporality, and contextuality among other dimensions and as such necessitates a range of disciplines to give justice to understanding the implementation process, impacts, and outcomes of KT interventions, 2) KT interventions vary in terms of type and KT practitioners may draw from the arts, the information sciences, psychology to inform the development of their interventions …and as such, to evaluate process and effectiveness of these wide ranging interventions an interdisciplinary approach is beneficial.
For example, if one were to evaluate the effectiveness of an arts-based intervention to translate knowledge, wouldn’t it be important to consider knowledge from the arts and humanities fields in the process of developing an evaluation framework of one’s arts-based KT intervention?
References cited:
Cook-Sather, A. & Shore, E. (2007). Breaking the Rule of Discipline in Interdisciplinarity: Redefining Professors, Students, and Staff as Faculty. Journal of Research Practice, 3 (2).
Evelyn Cornelissen 12:51 am on May 4, 2011 Permalink
Hi Shalini,
That’s great…that’s exactly the kind of response and input we were hoping to get in response to the original post. Interestingly, I hadn’t thought about the ‘interdisciplinarity’ of my dietetics background, but rather conceptualized it as a distinct discipline. This is perhaps due to the way it is often ‘practiced’. But your comments remind me of my interdisciplinary undergraduate training – physiology, biochemistry, nutrition, health education, pharmacology….etc. Thanks for the reminder.
In response to your question about evaluation, yes, I agree with your inclusive perspecitve on knowledge.
Keen to hear from others!