Search for: All records

Abstract BackgroundInterdisciplinarity is often hailed as a necessity for tackling real‐world challenges. We examine the prevalence and impact of interdisciplinarity in the NSF ADVANCE program, which addresses gender equity in STEM. MethodsThrough a quantitative analysis of authorship, references, and citations in ADVANCE publications, we compare the interdisciplinarity of knowledge produced within the program to traditional disciplinary knowledge. We use Simpon's Diversity Index to test for differences across disciplines, and we use negative binomial regression to capture the potential influences of interdisciplinarity on the long‐term impact of ADVANCE publications. ResultsADVANCE publications exhibit higher levels of interdisciplinarity across three dimensions of knowledge integration, and cross‐disciplinary ties within ADVANCE successfully integrate social science knowledge into diverse disciplines. Additionally, the interdisciplinarity of publication references positively influences the impact of ADVANCE work, while the interdisciplinarity of authorship teams does not. ConclusionsThese findings emphasize the significance of interdisciplinarity in problem‐oriented knowledge production, indicating that specific forms of interdisciplinarity can lead to broader impact. By shedding light on the interplay between interdisciplinary approaches, disciplinary structures, and academic recognition, this article contributes to programmatic design to generate impactful problem‐solving knowledge that also adds to the academic community. 

Implicit bias is one of the most successful cases in recent memory of an academic concept being translated into practice. Its use in the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program—which seeks to promote gender equality in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) careers through institutional transformation—has raised fundamental questions about organizational change. How do advocates translate theories into practice? What makes some concepts more tractable than others? What happens to theories through this translation process? We explore these questions using the ADVANCE program as a case study. Using an inductive, theory-building approach and combination of computational and qualitative methods, we investigate how the concept of implicit bias was translated into practice through the ADVANCE program and identify five key features that made implicit bias useful as a change framework in the academic STEM setting. We find that the concept of implicit bias works programmatically because it is (1) demonstrable, (2) relatable, (3) versatile, (4) actionable, and (5) impartial. While enabling the concept’s diffusion, these characteristics also limit its scope. We reflect on implications for gender theories of organizational change and for practitioners.