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. 

Service work in academia, including organizational change efforts, often competes with time for research, potentially affecting academic careers (tenure, promotion, and pay) through slowed publication productivity. However, little is known about how involvement in such efforts affects publication strategies or whether external funding mitigates the potentially negative impacts on research activity. The authors examine changes in publication trajectories among academics participating in the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program, an externally funded gender equity initiative. Using bibliometric data and a matched sample, the authors find that scholars involved in ADVANCE awards published significantly more articles within the first four years after receiving funding. This increase cannot be fully attributed to shifts in research focus, such as publications on gender, or changes in collaboration patterns. Instead, ADVANCE resources created a spillover effect, boosting publications in gender equity while also enhancing productivity in scholars’ primary research areas. These findings suggest that external and institutional resource allocation can offset the additional burdens associated with organizational change work, enabling academics to maintain active research careers while contributing to sustainable change initiatives. This highlights the critical role of robust resource provision in supporting faculty members engaged in organizational change. 

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.