Multidisciplinary research: should effort be the measure of success?

References

• Allen, T. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International journal of project management, 17(6), 337–342. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6
   Google Scholar
• Beerkens, M. (2013). Facts and fads in academic research management: The effect of management practices on research productivity in Australia. Research Policy, 42(9), 1679–1693. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berker, T., & Bharathi, K. (2012). Energy and buildings research: Challenges from the new production of knowledge. Building Research & Information, 40(4), 473–480. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.690954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracken, L. J., & Oughton, E. A. (2006). What do you mean? The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 371–382. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00218.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brook, M., Eden, D., Ferris, T., Graillat, C., Lam, H., Lerman, S., … Wu, J. (2012). Comprehensive energy efficiency program for existing buildings scoping report. California Energy Commission. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-400-2012-015/CEC-400-2012-015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Buswell, R. A., Marini, D., Webb, L. H., & Thomson, M. (2013). Determining heat use in residential buildings using high resolution gas and domestic hot water monitoring. In the proceedings of the 13th International conference on Building Simulation, 25–28 August 2013, Chambery, France. Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/13146
   Google Scholar
• California Energy Commission. (2015). Existing buildings energy efficiency action plan, September 2015. California Energy Commission. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/15-IEPR-05/TN206015_20150904T153548_Existing_Buildings_Energy_Efficiency_Action_Plan.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, L. M. (2005). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19, 574–577. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00058.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Committee on Climate Change (CCC). (2015). The fifth carbon budget: The next step towards a low-carbon economy, November 2015. CCC. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from https://www.theccc.org.uk/publications/
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, A., Shipworth, D., & Humphrey, A. (2014). UK energy lab: A feasibility study for a longitudinal, nationally representative, sociotechnical, survey of energy use Final Report. Centre of Energy Epidemiology, UCL and NatCen.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36(10), 1620–1634. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). (2014). The allocation of science and research funding 2015/16. London: BIS. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332767/bis-14-750-science-research-funding-allocations-2015-2016-corrected.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2015). English housing survey households 2013–14. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International journal of project management, 6(3), 164–170. doi: 10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9
   Google Scholar
• Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). (2014). Developing DECC’s evidence base. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
   Google Scholar
• Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89–95. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00012-1
   Google Scholar
• Energy Efficiency Plan. (2011). Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions energy efficiency plan 2011. European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Energy Technologies Institute (ETI). (2015). Smart systems and heat: Decarbonising heat for UK homes. Birmingham: ETI. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from ‪http://www.eti.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Smart-Systems-and-Heat-Decarbonising-Heat-for-UK-Homes-.pdf‪
   Google Scholar
• EPBD. (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. European Commission. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/En.a.LL/;ELX_SESSIONID=FZMjThLLzfxmmMCQGp2Y1s2d3TjwtD8QS3pqdkhXZbwqGwlgY9KN!2064651424?uri=CELEX:32010L0031
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015). Guidance for evaluators of horizon 2020 proposals, version 1.1 of 26 September 2014 (Technical report). European Commission.Fong, P. S. (2003). Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: An empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships. International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 479–486. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00047-4
   Google Scholar
• Golde, C. M., & Gallagher, H. A. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems, 2(4), 281–285. doi:10.1007/s100219900076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna, R., Gross, R., Speirs, J., Heptonstall, P., & Gambhir, A. (2015). UKERC technology and policy assessment innovation timelines from invention to maturity: A rapid review of the evidence on the time taken for new technologies to reach widespread commercialization. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/programmes/technology-and-policy-assessment/innovation-timelines-from-invention-to-maturity-a-review-of-the-evidence-on-the-time-taken-for-new-technologies-to-reach-widespread-commercialisation.html
   Google Scholar
• Hautala, J., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2014). Spatio-temporal processes of knowledge creation. Research Policy, 43(4), 655–668. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazas, M., Friday, A., & Scott, J. (2011). Look back before leaping forward: Four decades of domestic energy inquiry. IEEE; Pervasize Computing, 11, 1536–1268. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2010.89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research policy, 37(4), 740–760. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, J. C., & Newell, S. (2003). Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context of cross-functional projects. International journal of project management, 21(3), 167–176. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00091-1
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., & Currall, S. C. (2011). Inside multi-disciplinary science and engineering research centers: The impact of organizational climate on invention disclosures and patents. Research Policy, 40(9), 1226–1239. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ika, L. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43–65. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning, K., & Helming, K. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy, 42(1), 261–272. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraut, R., Egido, C., & Galegher, J. (1990). Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In: Galegher, J., Kraut, R., & Egido, C. (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and techno- logical bases of cooperative work (pp. 149–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Lander, B. (2016). Boundary-spanning in academic healthcare organisations. Research Policy, 45(8), 1524–1533. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leder Mackley, K., & Pink, S. (2013). From emplaced knowing to interdisciplinary knowledge: Sensory ethnography in energy research. Senses and Society, 8(3), 335–353. doi:10.2752/174589313X13712175020596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner, F., & Wald, A. (2011). Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations. International Journal of project management, 29(7), 877–888. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomas, K. J. (2010). Carbon reduction in existing buildings: A transdisciplinary approach. Building Research & Information, 38(1), 1–11. doi:10.1080/09613210903350937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Love, J., & Cooper, A. C. G. (2015). From social and technical to socio-technical: Designing integrated research on domestic energy use. Indoor and Built Environment, 1–13. doi:10.1177/1420326X15601722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group (LCICG). (2014). Coordinating low carbon technology innovation support the LCICG’s strategic framework. London: LCICG.
   Google Scholar
• Lowe, P., & Phillipson, J. (2009). Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: Scientific paradigms and institutional practices. Environment and planning, 41(5), 1171–1184. doi:10.1068/a4175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallaband, B., Staddon, S., Buchanan, K., Wood, G., Mogles, N. M., & Gabe-Thomas, E. (in review). The reality of integrating social science into UK energy research: A view from the inside. Submitted to Energy Research & Social Science 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Mallaband, B., & Haines, V. (2014, September 13th–17th, Seattle, WA, USA). Blurred lines: How does cross-disciplinary research work in practice? In UBICOMP ‘14 ADJUNCT. Retrieved from http://ubicomp.org/ubicomp2014/proceedings/ubicomp_adjunct/workshops/HomeSys/p963-mallaband.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mårtensson, P., Fors, U., Wallin, S. B., Zander, U., & Nilsson, G. H. (2016). Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality. Research Policy, 45(3), 593–603. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-de-Castro, G., López-Sáez, P., & Navas-López, J. E. (2008). Processes of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: Empirical evidence from Boston’s route 128 and Spain. Technovation, 28(4), 222–230. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, N., & Zare, R. N. (1999). Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science, 283(5402), 642–643. doi:10.1126/science.283.5402.642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, M. M. (2013). Interdisciplinary research and the early career: The effect of interdisciplinary dissertation research on career placement and publication productivity of doctoral graduates in the sciences. Research Policy, 42(5), 1152–1164. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, V., Leder-Mackley, K., Pink, S., Escobar-Tello, C., Wilson, G. T., & Bhamra, T. (2014). Situating digital interventions: Mixed methods for HCI research in the home. Interacting with Computers, iwu034. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwu034
   Google Scholar
• Newell, S., & Swan, J. (2000). Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human relations, 53(10), 1287–1328. doi: 10.1177/a014106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, J., Terry, N., Firth, S., & Leslie, I. (2015). Costing monitoring equipment for a longitudinal energy survey. Cambridge, UK: Department of Energy and Climate Change.
   Google Scholar
• Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., Fischer, H. M., Brown, J., Kanfer, A., & Bowker, G. (2004). Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy, 33(4), 661–678. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quiggin, D., & Buswell, R. A. (2016). The implications of heat electrification on national electrical supply-demand balance under published 2050 energy scenarios. Energy, 98, 253–270. ISSN: 0360–5442. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Councils UK. (2015). RCUK delivery plan 2015/2016 (Technical report). Research Councils UK.
   Google Scholar
• Research Excellence Framework (REF). (2014). REF2014: Research excellence framework. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/#content
   Google Scholar
• Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items and Issues, 5(1–2), 6–11. Retrieved from http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/Director/survey/Interdisciplinary%20Research%20Trend%20or%20Transition.v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Shahin, J., Meyer, T. Kloza, D., & Biedenkopf, K. (2014). Building bridges, breaking barriers: The smart approach to distance between disciplines in research projects (Technical report). European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ies.be/files/141022MultiDiscFINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K. (2014). What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 1–29. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003
   Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. K., Ryan, S. E., Stern, P. C., Janda, K., Rochlin, G., Spreng, D., … Lutzenhiser, L. (2015). Integrating social science in energy research. Energy Research & Social Science, 6(1), 95–99. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2014.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summerfield, A. J., & Lowe, R. (2012). Challenges and future directions for energy and buildings research. Building Research & Information, 40(4), 391–400. doi:10.1080/09613218.2012.693839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togia, A., & Tsigilis, N. (2006). Impact factor and education journals: A critical examination and analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(6), 362–379. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2007.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J. (2016). Knowledge creation in collaboration networks: Effects of tie configuration. Research Policy, 45(1), 68–80. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterton, C., Norton, L., & Morris, J. (2006). Understanding loweswater: Interdisciplinary research in practice. Agricultural Economics, 57(2), 277–293. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00052.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitley, R. (1984). The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 331–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00415.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winskel, M., Ketsopoulou, J., & Churchouse, T. (2015). UKERC interdisciplinary review: Research report final version, April 2015. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/publications/ukerc-interdisciplinary-review-research-report.html
   Google Scholar
• Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W., & Purvis-Thurow, V. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440. doi:10.1353/rhe.1999.0019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar