Understanding disciplinary perspectives: a framework to develop skills for interdisciplinary research collaborations of medical experts and engineers.
Adaptive expertise
Disciplinary perspectives
Epistemology
Higher-order cognitive abilities
Interdisciplinary expertise
Medical technology
Metacognitive skills
Problem-solving
Reflection
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Sep 2024
13 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
14
07
2023
accepted:
14
08
2024
medline:
14
9
2024
pubmed:
14
9
2024
entrez:
13
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health professionals need to be prepared for interdisciplinary research collaborations aimed at the development and implementation of medical technology. Expertise is highly domain-specific, and learned by being immersed in professional practice. Therefore, the approaches and results from one domain are not easily understood by experts from another domain. Interdisciplinary collaboration in medical research faces not only institutional, but also cognitive and epistemological barriers. This is one of the reasons why interdisciplinary and interprofessional research collaborations are so difficult. To explain the cognitive and epistemological barriers, we introduce the concept of disciplinary perspectives. Making explicit the disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in interdisciplinary collaborations helps to clarify the specific approach of each expert, thereby improving mutual understanding. We developed a framework for making disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in an interdisciplinary research collaboration explicit. The applicability of the framework has been tested in an interdisciplinary medical research project aimed at the development and implementation of diffusion MRI for the diagnosis of kidney cancer, where the framework was applied to analyse and articulate the disciplinary perspectives of the experts involved. We propose a general framework, in the form of a series of questions, based on new insights from the philosophy of science into the epistemology of interdisciplinary research. We explain these philosophical underpinnings in order to clarify the cognitive and epistemological barriers of interdisciplinary research collaborations. In addition, we present a detailed example of the use of the framework in a concrete interdisciplinary research project aimed at developing a diagnostic technology. This case study demonstrates the applicability of the framework in interdisciplinary research projects. Interdisciplinary research collaborations can be facilitated by a better understanding of how an expert's disciplinary perspectives enables and guides their specific approach to a problem. Implicit disciplinary perspectives can and should be made explicit in a systematic manner, for which we propose a framework that can be used by disciplinary experts participating in interdisciplinary research project. Furthermore, we suggest that educators can explore how the framework and philosophical underpinning can be implemented in HPE to support the development of students' interdisciplinary expertise.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health professionals need to be prepared for interdisciplinary research collaborations aimed at the development and implementation of medical technology. Expertise is highly domain-specific, and learned by being immersed in professional practice. Therefore, the approaches and results from one domain are not easily understood by experts from another domain. Interdisciplinary collaboration in medical research faces not only institutional, but also cognitive and epistemological barriers. This is one of the reasons why interdisciplinary and interprofessional research collaborations are so difficult. To explain the cognitive and epistemological barriers, we introduce the concept of disciplinary perspectives. Making explicit the disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in interdisciplinary collaborations helps to clarify the specific approach of each expert, thereby improving mutual understanding.
METHOD
METHODS
We developed a framework for making disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in an interdisciplinary research collaboration explicit. The applicability of the framework has been tested in an interdisciplinary medical research project aimed at the development and implementation of diffusion MRI for the diagnosis of kidney cancer, where the framework was applied to analyse and articulate the disciplinary perspectives of the experts involved.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We propose a general framework, in the form of a series of questions, based on new insights from the philosophy of science into the epistemology of interdisciplinary research. We explain these philosophical underpinnings in order to clarify the cognitive and epistemological barriers of interdisciplinary research collaborations. In addition, we present a detailed example of the use of the framework in a concrete interdisciplinary research project aimed at developing a diagnostic technology. This case study demonstrates the applicability of the framework in interdisciplinary research projects.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Interdisciplinary research collaborations can be facilitated by a better understanding of how an expert's disciplinary perspectives enables and guides their specific approach to a problem. Implicit disciplinary perspectives can and should be made explicit in a systematic manner, for which we propose a framework that can be used by disciplinary experts participating in interdisciplinary research project. Furthermore, we suggest that educators can explore how the framework and philosophical underpinning can be implemented in HPE to support the development of students' interdisciplinary expertise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39272191
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05913-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-05913-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1000Subventions
Organisme : Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
ID : 409.40216
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mylopoulos M, Regehr G. Cognitive metaphors of expertise and knowledge: prospects and limitations for medical education. Med Educ. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02912.x .
Mylopoulos M, Kulasegaram K, Woods NN. Developing the experts we need: fostering adaptive expertise through education. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12905 .
World Health Organization (WHO). Medical devices: managing the Mismatch. An outcome of the Priority Medical devices project. WHO; 2010. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564045 .
Gilbert JH, Yan J, Hoffman SJ. A WHO report: framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. J Allied Health. 2010;39(Suppl 1):196–7.
MacLeod M. What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4 .
Hudson JN, Croker A. Educating for collaborative practice: an interpretation of current achievements and thoughts for future directions. Med Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13455 .
Van der Beemt A, MacLeod M, van der Veen JT, van de Ven A, van Baalen S, Klaassen RG, Boon M. Interdisciplinary engineering education: a review of vision, teaching and support. J Eng Educ. 2020;109(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20347 .
Boon M, Van Baalen SJ, Groenier M. Interdisciplinary expertise in medical practice: challenges of using and producing knowledge in complex problem-solving. Med Teach. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1544417 .
Klein J. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University; 1990.
Repko A, Navakas F, Fiscella J. Integrating interdisciplinarity: how the theories of common ground and Cognitive_Interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues Interdisciplinary Stud. 2007;25:1–31.
Menken S, Keestra M, Rutting L, Post G, de Roo M, Blad S, de Greef L. An introduction to interdisciplinary research: theory and practice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University; 2016.
doi: 10.1515/9789048531615
Repko AF, Szostak R. Interdisciplinary research. Process and theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2017.
Hasan MN, Koksal C, Montel L, Le Gouais A, Barnfield A, Bates G, Kwon HR. Developing shared understanding through online interdisciplinary collaboration: reflections from a research project on better integration of health outcomes in future urban. Futures. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103176 .
Stokols D, Olson JS, Salazar M, Olson GM. Strengthening the ecosystem for effective team science: a case study from University of California, Irvine, USA. 2019. https://i2insights.org/2019/02/19/team-science-ecosystem/ . Accessed 2 Feb 2024 .
Brister E. Disciplinary capture and epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research: lessons from Central African conservation disputes. Stud History Philos Sci part C: Stud History Philos Biol Biomedical Sci. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.001 .
Boon M, Orozco M, Sivakumar K. Epistemological and educational issues in teaching practice-oriented scientific research: roles for philosophers of science. Eur J Philos Sci. 2022;12(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00447-z .
doi: 10.1007/s13194-022-00447-z
Bridle H, Vrieling A, Cardillo M, Araya Y, Hinojosa L. Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: a perspective from early-career researchers. Futures. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.003 .
Newell WH. Decision-making in Interdisciplinary studies. In: Morcol G, editor. Handbook of decision making. New York: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2007. p. 245–65.
Szostak R. How to do interdisciplinarity. Integrating the debate. Issues Integr Stud. 2002;20:103–22.
Roux DJ, Nel JL, Cundill G, O’farrell P, Fabricius C. Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustain Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0 .
Boon M. The role of disciplinary perspectives in an epistemology of models. Eur J Philos Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00295-9 .
Boon M, Conceptual modelling as an overarching research skill in engineering education. SEFI2023 2023; https://doi.org/10.21427/ZDX4-VV41 accessed through https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=sefi2023_prapap .
Guraya SY, Barr H. The effectiveness of interprofessional education in healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2017.12.009 .
Darlow B, Brown M, McKinlay E, Gray L, Purdie G, Pullen S. Longitudinal impact of preregistration interprofessional education on the attitudes and skills of health professionals during their early careers: a non-randomised trial with 4-year outcomes. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e060066. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060066 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060066
Clark G. Institutionalizing interdisciplinary health professions programs in higher education: the implications of one story and two laws. J Interprof Care. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731296 .
O’Keefe M, Henderson A, Chick R. Defining a set of common interprofessional learning competencies for health profession students. Med Teach. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1300246 .
Choi BC, Pak AW. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. Clin Invest Med. 2007. https://doi.org/10.25011/cim.v30i6.2950 .
Lawlis TR, Anson J, Greenfield D. Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review. J Interprof Care. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.895977 .
Schwartz DL, Bransford JD, Sears D. Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Charlotte, NC: Information age publishing. 2005; 3:1–51. Edited by JP Mestre JP.
Mylopoulos M, Regehr G. Putting the expert together again. Med Educ. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04032.x .
Carbonell KB, Stalmeijer RE, Könings KD, Segers M, van Merriënboer JJ. How experts deal with novel situations: a review of adaptive expertise. Educ Res Rev. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.03.001 .
Kulasegaram K, Min C, Howey E, Neville A, Woods N, Dore K, et al. The mediating effect of context variation in mixed practice for transfer of basic science. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9574-9 .
Castillo JM, Park YS, Harris I, Cheung JJH, Sood L, Clark MD, et al. A critical narrative review of transfer of basic science knowledge in health professions education. Med Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13519 .
Dyre L, Tolsgaard MG. The gap in transfer research. Med Educ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13591 .
Van Baalen S, Leemans A, Dik P, Lilien MR, Ten Haken B, Froeling M. Intravoxel incoherent motion modeling in the kidneys: comparison of mono-, bi-, and triexponential fit. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25519 .
Van Baalen S, Froeling M, Asselman M, Klazen C, Jeltes C, Van Dijk L, et al. Mono, bi-and tri-exponential diffusion MRI modelling for renal solid masses and comparison with histopathological findings. Cancer Imaging. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-018-0178-0 .
Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1970.
Boon M, Van Baalen S. Epistemology for interdisciplinary research–shifting philosophical paradigms of science. Eur J Philos Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4 .
Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol. 1979. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 .
Pintrich P P.R. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Pract. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3 .
Groenier M, Pieters JM, Miedema HAT. Technical medicine: designing medical technological solutions for improved health care. Med Sci Educ 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0443-z
Chandarana H, Kang SK, Wong S, Rusinek H, Zhang JL, Arizono S et al. Diffusion-Weighted Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging of Renal Tumors with Histopathologic Correlation. Invest Radiol 2012. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31826a0a49 .
Feng Q, Ma Z, Zhang S, Wu J. Usefulness of diffusion tensor imaging for the differentiation between low-fat angiomyolipoma and clear cell carcinoma of the kidney. SpringerPlus. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1628-x .
Rheinheimer S, Stieltjes B, Schneider F, Simon D, Pahernik S, Kauczor HU, et al. Investigation of renal lesions by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging applying intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters–initial experience. Eur J Radiol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.016 .
Van der Bel R, Gurney-Champion OJ, Froeling M, Stroues ESG, Nederveen AJ, Krediet CTP. A tri-exponential model for intravoxel incoherent motion analysis of the human kidney: in silico and during pharmacological renal perfusion modulation. Eur J Radiol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.03.008 .
Boon M: Philosophy of science in practice: a proposal for epistemological constructivism. 2015; Helsinki (Finland). Edited by Leitgeb H, Niiniluoto I, Seppälä P, Sober E. Helsinki (Finland): College publications. 2017a:289–310. 2017a.
Fleck L. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1935/1979.
Mößner N. Thought styles and paradigms—a comparative study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.12.002 .
Sady W. Ludwik Fleck. In: the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Zalta EN, editor. 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/fleck/ . Accessed 30 Jul 2020.
Boon M. An engineering paradigm in the biomedical sciences: knowledge as epistemic tool. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2017b. doi:j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001.
Van Baalen S, Boon M. An epistemological shift: from evidence-based medicine to epistemological responsibility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12282 .
Woods NN, Brooks LR, Norman GR. The role of biomedical knowledge in diagnosis of difficult clinical cases. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:417–26.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9054-y
Schmidt HG, Rikers RMJP. How expertise develops in medicine: knowledge encapsulation and illness script formation. Med Educ. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02915.x .
Newell WH. A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues Integr Stud. 2001;19:1–25.
Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R. Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov High Educ. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984 .
Nikitina S. Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring. J Curric stud. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500422632 .
Aram JD. Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Hum Relat. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043893 .
Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, et al. Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x .
Mansilla VB, Duraisingh ED, Wolfe CR, Haynes C. Targeted assessment rubric: an empirically grounded rubric for interdisciplinary writing. J High Educ. 2009;80(3):334–53.
doi: 10.1080/00221546.2009.11779016
Spelt EJ, Biemans HJ, Tobi H, Luning PA, Mulder M. Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educ Psychol Rev. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z .
Klein JA. A Taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, editor. In the oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2010. p. 15–30.
Terpstra JL, Best A, Abrams DB, Moor G. Health sciences and health services. In: Frodeman R, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
DeZure D. Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education. In: Frodeman R, editor. In the oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2010. p. 372–87.
Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5 .
Haynes C, Brown-Leonard J. From surprise parties to mapmaking: undergraduate journeys toward interdisciplinary understanding. J High Educ. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779070 .
Hirsch-Hadorn G, Pohl C, Bammer G. Solving problems through transdisciplinary research. In: Frodeman R, editor. In the oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University press; 2010. p. 431–52.
Szostak R. The interdisciplinary research process. In: Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R, editors. In Interdisciplinary research: case studies of integrative understandings of complex problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011. p. 3–19.
McNair LD, Newswander C, Boden D, Borrego M. Student and faculty interdisciplinary identities in self-managed teams. J Eng Educ. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00018.x .
Liu SY, Lin CS, Tsai CC. College Students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in Socioscientific decision making. Sci Educ. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20422 .
Abu-Rish E, Kim S, Choe L, Varpio L, Malik E, White AA, et al. Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: a literature review. J Interprof Care. 2012. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012.715604 .
Bammer G. Disciplining interdisciplinarity - integration and implementation sciences for researching Complex real-world problems. Canberra: Australian National University E-Press; 2013.
doi: 10.26530/OAPEN_459901
Holbrook JB. What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7 .
Andersen H. The second essential tension: on tradition and innovation in interdisciplinary research. Topoi. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z .
Andersen H. Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006 .
Lattuca LR, Knight DB, Bergom IM. Developing a measure of interdisciplinary competence for engineers. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education 2012 Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, USA; 2013.
Acquavita SP, Lewis MA, Aparicio E, Pecukonis E. Student perspectives on interprofessional education and experiences. J Allied Health. 2014;43(2):e31–6.
Pharo E, Davison A, McGregor H, Warr K, Brown P. Using communities of practice to enhance interdisciplinary teaching: lessons from four Australian institutions. High Educ Res Dev. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.832168 .
Boon M. How philosophical beliefs about science affect science education in academic engineering programs: the context of construction. Eng Stud. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2022.2125398 .
Bromme R, Pieschl S, Stahl E. Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: a functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition Learn. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9053-5 .