307
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Exploring academics’ beliefs about interdisciplinary research collaboration and their influences on collaborative practices: a mixed-method study in China

ORCID Icon, &
Pages 2084-2099 | Received 30 Sep 2021, Accepted 09 Mar 2023, Published online: 03 May 2023
 

ABSTRACT

This mixed-method study explored academics’ beliefs about interdisciplinary research collaboration (IDRC) and their influences on collaborative practices in a Chinese research university. Exploratory interviews with nine academics were first conducted to examine their beliefs about IDRC. The findings revealed that the academics’ beliefs about IDRC fell into six broad themes, that is, IDRC: helps better address research problems; helps achieve innovative results; helps expand new academic fields; is challenging which requires crossing boundaries among disciplines; is a gradual process that takes plenty of time and effort; and is not necessary as some research problems can be addressed through within-disciplinary research. Based on the interview findings, a questionnaire was developed to examine the influences of academics’ beliefs about IDRC on their self-reported collaborative practices and then administered to 659 academics in the university. Results showed that four of the six beliefs significantly and positively affected self-reported collaborative practice; one belief significantly and negatively affected self-reported collaborative practice; and one belief had no significant effect on self-reported collaborative practice. Differences existed among the academics of different disciplines regarding the influence of their beliefs about IDRC on self-reported collaborative practice. The practical implications of the findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

View correction statement:
Correction

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2203468)

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.