Conducting literature review across multiple disciplines

Different aspects of individual learning, such as learning about new fields, understanding differences between fields, and learning how to communicate and identify collaborators, contribute to researchers’ ability to interact across multiple disciplines (Carr, Loucks, & Blöschl, 2018). Interdisciplinary research is a shared and collaborative process that brings individual disciplinary strengths and results in the creation of new knowledge and research methods. There is considerable debate around the value and purpose of a multi-disciplinary approach, and how to structure the process so that different disciplinary constructs and methodologies enrich the understanding of the problem (Whitfield & Reid, 2004).

Reviewing and writing literature in a new discipline is challenging due to the need to evaluate research contributions in unknown fields.

In interdisciplinary research, when concepts are not connected properly, it can cause inconsistencies in analysis and lead to biased interpretations. It is therefore necessary to ensure coherence while researching an interdisciplinary topic.

This article serves as a guide on how to review literature across multiple disciplines in a clear, concise and systematic manner.

Avert knowledge ambiguity

Disciplines are seen as restricted language codes. When a researcher tries to interpret problems from another discipline, it can seem challenging, necessitating collaborative research (Dalton, Wolff, & Bekker, 2021). Thus, taking a non-linear approach and reading extensively about the new subject in books and journal articles to get familiarised with its fundamentals is beneficial.

In a non-linear setup, knowledge acquisition is an ongoing process where researchers revisit and refine their understanding to avoid ambiguity in research. Ambiguity refers to a state of uncertainty or vagueness where there are multiple possible interpretations or outcomes, and the probabilities associated with these outcomes are not clearly defined (Schutze, 1995).

A strong foundation in a new discipline helps to interpret the research in the right manner and put the main ideas into context. Knowledge is not static and is constantly evolving. Thus, it is important to consider that knowledge is filtered through the lens of individual experiences, biases, and cognitive processes. The same information will be interpreted differently by different people (Bühren, Meier, & Marco, 2023). Thus, cite relatable and reliable sources, data, and evidence to support the findings of the study. Acknowledge different viewpoints and add a discussion from balanced information to address potential biases.

A systematic approach to reviewing literature across multiple disciplines

A good tool for reviewing literature across multiple disciplines is meta-analysis. It helps to synthesize evidence from multiple primary studies to provide a more robust and generalizable understanding of the respective research questions (Pradipta, Forsman, Bruchfeld, Hak, & Alffenaar, 2018). It integrates quantitative data from different studies, providing a comprehensive view that transcends individual disciplinary boundaries. It is thus a valuable statistical technique (Haidich, 2010). Reviewing meta-analysis papers published in reputed journals helps to get a better understanding of the research questions.

For instance, in the context of medical research, meta-analyses are frequently used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various treatments, as well as to identify risk factors for specific diseases or conditions. Incorporating a step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies has helped fellow researchers collaborate efficiently (Glisic, et al., 2023). When meta-analysis is not feasible or meaningful, summarizing findings qualitatively with narrative or descriptive data synthesis can be as informative as meta-analysis. (Glisic, et al., 2023) suggests to choose between literature review and meta-analysis in cases when :

• the number of studies is insufficient,
• essential information is missing,
• or the evidence is too heterogeneous.

Researchers should also review observational studies across multiple disciplines. Observational studies offer important descriptive data gathered over time by analysing large sets of data. These studies include various types like case reports, case series, ecological studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies (Gilmartin-Thomas, Liew, & Hopper, 2018).

Concept or mind maps can simplify concepts across multiple disciplines

Mind maps are visual tools used to represent an idea. They help in brainstorming, planning, and structuring thoughts on a complex idea so that connections between different concepts can be seen. Concept maps are also like mind maps, except that they’re hierarchical and more structured, whereas mind maps are random. Such organized structures involve more positive emotions and perseverance in learning (Evans & Jeong, 2023).

Concept mapping can facilitate critical thinking, particularly for complex concepts with coherence and interaction among subtopics (Charles & Shenghua, 2013). A learner’s performance and critical thinking are positively correlated. Concept mapping not only helps to organize new information but also enables one to make in-depth reflections on learning outcomes (Hwang & Kuo, 2013). They are an effective communication tool since the rationale and thought process behind new ideas are clearly outlined. They enhance real-time collaboration too, which is necessary in case of interdisciplinary topics requiring constant communication between different collaborators (Lin & Faste, 2011).

Look for social learning opportunities

Interactions with peers are a crucial element of an adult learning process. Social learning theorists have emphasized that the social context in which cognitive activity takes place is an integral part of the learning process. Such authentic collaborative learning experiences are found both in the workplace and in educational settings, such as cognitive apprenticeships, communities of practice, learning communities, and even computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Learning communities and communities of practice provide benefits by allowing researchers from different disciplines to regularly meet, discuss, and explore topics of shared interest. Such conferences or meetups foster collaboration, interdisciplinary conversations, and the development of shared knowledge among participants (Bond & Blevins, 2020).

Furthermore, these social interactions also allow researchers to test and modify proposed synthesis or co-construction of knowledge based on assistance and guidance from peers. Researchers from Social sciences and Humanities have also suggested a framework based on social constructivism theory. They also suggest that higher-order thinking is more likely to be produced through social interaction (Hussin, Harun, & Shukor, 2014).

References

• Bond, M. A., & Blevins, S. J. (2020). Using Faculty Professional Development to Foster Organizational. Association for Educational Communications & Technology, 229–237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00459-2
• Braun, T., & Schubert , A. (2007). The growth of research on inter-and multidisciplinarity in science and social science papers, 1975–2006. Scientometrics, 345–351.
• Bühren, C., Meier, F., & Marco, P. (2023). Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years. Management Review Quarterly, 495–525. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00250-9
• Carr, G., Loucks, D. P., & Blöschl, G. (2018). Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: A. Research Policy, 35-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.010
• Charles, H., & Shenghua, Z. (2013). Concept mapping: A critical thinking technique. Project Innovation Austin, 77-81.
• Dalton, A., Wolff, K., & Bekker, B. (2021). Multidisciplinary Research as a Complex. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211038400
• Evans, T., & Jeong, I. (2023). Concept maps as assessment for learning in university. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 475–498. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10209-0
• Gilmartin-Thomas, J. F., Liew, D., & Hopper, I. (2018). Observational studies and their utility for practice. Aust Prescr, 82-85. doi:10.18773/austprescr.2018.017
• Glisic, a., Raguindin, P. F., Raguindin, P. F., Gemperli, A., Taneri, P. E., Salvador, a. J., . . . Voortman, T. (2023). A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences. Public Health Reviews, 1-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2023.1605454
• Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. HIPPOKRATIA, 29-37. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/pdf/hippokratia-14-29.pdf
• Hussin, W. N., Harun, J., & Shukor, N. A. (2014). ONLINE INTERACTION IN SOCIAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 4-12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.544
• Hwang, G.-J., & Kuo, F.-R. (2013). Effects of touch technology-based concept mapping on students’ learning attitudes and perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 274-285.
• Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 43–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/001318800363908
• Lin, H., & Faste, H. (2011). Digital mind mapping: innovations for real-time collaborative thinking. Association for Computing Machinery, 2137-2142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979910
• Pradipta, I. S., Forsman, L. D., Bruchfeld, J., Hak, E., & Alffenaar, J.-W. (2018). Risk factors of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Infection, 469-478. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2018.10.004
• Schutze, H. ( 1995). Ambiguity in language learning: Computational and cognitive models. Stanford University ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
• Whitfield, K., & Reid, C. (2004). Assumptions, Ambiguities, and Possibilities in Interdisciplinary Population Health Research. Canadian journal of public health, 434-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403988