AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
David P. Schary for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Exercise and Sport Science
presented on February 26, 2014.
Title: Breaking Silos: Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology.
Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________
Bradley J. Cardinal
With the growing popularity of kinesiology at the undergraduate level, one would
expect the field to be influential. Kinesiology, however, appears to be in a paradox. The
undergraduate popularity is not reflected in the rest of academia, or even the general
public, many of whom feel kinesiology is not a legitimate field. Part of kinesiology’s
problems may be due to the continued fragmentation among the sub-disciplines. Many
prominent kinesiologists have proposed interdisciplinary research (IDR) as a viable path
to the field’s re-unification. Despite all of the discourse about this, however, the field
appears to be stuck.
The overall objective of this dissertation was to nudge the conversation forward
by exploring IDR in kinesiology. This dissertation attempted to close this knowledge gap
by summarizing the body of literature on IDR, outline trends, purpose a model for IDR,
describe incentives and limitations, and identify areas for further investigation within the
field of kinesiology (and possibly broader academic community). This was accomplished
by using a mixed-methods approach, consisting of two separate but related studies.
The first empirical study provided a quantitative descriptive review of IDR in
kinesiology and purposed a prediction model. A stratified-random sample of journal
articles (n = 552) were selected from kinesiology-focused journals (n = 10) from the
years 2008 to 2012. Articles were coded on a variety variables characterizing the authors
and the nature of the research. Authors were primarily publishing disciplinary research
(78.8%) versus IDR (21.2%). The majority of research was biophysical (67.2%),
quantitative (94.5%), and funded (52.7%). Authors from kinesiology departments
published just over half the journal articles (57.4%). There was little significant change in
the authors or research variables across time. The prediction model for IDR selected by
the step-wise regression (R2
= 0.52, p < 0.001) had three predictor variables: behavior
epidemiology framework, theoretical framework, and disciplinary focus. However,
despite increased demand for IDR and kinesiology’s inherent multidisciplinary nature,
disciplinary research prevails in the field.
The second empirical study explored kinesiologists’ perception of IDR, including
perceived benefits and limitations. Themes were uncovered using a qualitative, opencoding
protocol. The overarching themes were Benefits (i.e., the positive aspects to
conducting IDR) and Limitations (i.e., the challenges to conducting IDR), each with eight
sub-themes. The most prominent sub-themes for Benefits were New Perspectives, Better
Results, and Collaboration Potential. The most prominent sub-themes for Limitations
were Collaboration Problems, Challenging Methodology, and Limiting Results and
Analysis. Overall, all participants felt IDR was valuable to the field, but each had
legitimate reservations, creating a somewhat contradictory environment that causes
tension between the perceived benefits and limitations. Until the tension can be resolved,
IDR may continue to remain on the fringes of kinesiology research.
©Copyright by David P. Schary
February 26, 2014
All Rights Reserved
Breaking Silos: Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology
by
David P. Schary
A DISSERTATION
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Presented February 26, 2014
Commencement June 2014
Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of David P. Schary presented on February 26, 2014.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Exercise and Sport Science
Co-Director of the School of Biological and Population Health Sciences
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to
any reader upon request.
David P. Schary, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would to thank God for allowing me the opportunity and strength to pursue
something I love.
I would to thank my adviser Dr. Bradley J. Cardinal. My accomplishments would not
have been possible without his excellent advice and guidance. I could not have asked for
a better mentor.
I would to thank my committee members: Dr. Vicki Ebbeck, Dr. Adam Branscum, Dr.
Sam Vuchinich, and Dr. John Edwards. I truly appreciate your continual support. I would
also like to thank my friends, especially, Brian Souza, Erica Woekel, Paul Loprinzi, and
Alexis Waldron for your advice and suggestions throughout this project.
I would also like to extend my greatest appreciation for the organizations that have
helped support me along the way: Society of Health and Physical Educators (Ruth
Abbernathy Presidental Scholarship); National Association for Kinesiology in Higher
Education (Jonna Davenport Poster Presentation Prize); Oregon Society of Health and
Physical Educators (Graduate Scholarship); Oregon State University, Graduate School
(Graduate Student Travel Award; Oregon Lottery Graduate Scholarship), Oregon State
University, College of Public Health and Human Sciences (Ruth E. Warnke Graduate
Fellowship; Kathleen F. and Edward H. Heath Fellowship; Art Koski Travel Grant;
Woods-Foster Fellowship).
I would to thank my family for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement
through my entire graduate school career. Finally, to Lisa, the love of my life. You are
my best friend and biggest cheerleader, and to that, I am forever grateful.
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
David P. Schary, M.S., M.P.H., conceptualized the studies, collected all data, conducted
and interpreted data analyses, and drafted the manuscripts.
Bradley J. Cardinal, Ph.D., assisted in the development of the research design, checked
thematic coding, provided editorial comments, and made suggestions on the
interpretation of the findings.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1. General Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Review of Literature ......................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3. Manuscript 1.................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4. Manuscript 2.................................................................................................... 73
Chapter 5. General Conclusion......................................................................................... 98
Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 100
Appendices...................................................................................................................... 105
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Selected journal characteristics........................................................................ 58
Table 1.2. Sample size for each journal by year............................................................... 59
Table 1.3. Population and sample size characteristics...................................................... 60
Table 1.4. Intra- and inter-rater reliability (Kappa) for study characteristics................... 61
Table 1.5. Study characteristics of the authors from articles sampled from 2008-2012. . 62
Table 1.6. Study characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008-2012........................ 63
Table 1.6 cont. Study characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008-2012 ................ 64
Table 1.7. Number of articles in each Behavioral Epidemiological Framework phase by
journal. .............................................................................................................................. 65
Table 1.8. Number of articles in each research methodology and design type by journal.
........................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 1.9. Number of articles in each interdisciplinary research typology by journal..... 68
Table 1.10. Study volume by content and methodological characteristics of the articles
sampled from 2008 to 2012. ............................................................................................. 69
Table 1.11. Step-wise regression analysis predicting interdisciplinary research.............. 72
Table 2.1. Demographic information of sample............................................................... 96
Table 2.2. Themes and sub-themes from faculty perceptions of interdisciplinary research
in kinesiology.................................................................................................................... 97
Chapter 1. General Introduction
2
General Introduction
With all the resources found within kinesiology, the discipline should be inspiring
and influential. This appears to be true among undergraduates in the United States,
kinesiology is one of the fastest growing majors, growing 50 percent from 2003 to 2008
(Wojciechowska, 2010). Fueling the popularity is the increased need for health
professionals to help an aging, sedentary American population. Many undergraduates
view kinesiology as a means to gain access into professional schools serving this
population (e.g., medical school, physical therapy school, and other allied health
professions). Despite the rise of interest among undergraduates, Wojciechowska stated
that less than one percent pursues a graduate degree within kinesiology.
Kinesiology appears to be in a paradox. The popularity on the undergraduate level
is not reflected in the rest of academia, or even the general public, many of whom feel
kinesiology is not a legitimate field. For example, Boone (2009), a professor and chair of
the Department of Exercise Physiology at the College of St. Scholastica, stated that
kinesiology is a “useless” degree because “there are no financially viable or credible jobs
for the graduates of these programs” (p. 10). In addition, Boone shared that a colleague
from a different department bluntly asked, “do the faculty know that exercise science is
little more than jargon and gibberish? This may be considered harsh, but it is reality” (p.
8).
Many have speculated about the reasons for the discrepancy between
undergraduate popularity and faculty disdain, Lawson (n.d.) argued it is because
kinesiology lacks economic and cultural capital. Economic capital is deficient because,
3
unlike other academic disciplines such as engineering or computer science, kinesiology
does not produce or research material goods. Instead, kinesiologists study human
movement. While tangible, human movement is not necessarily something you can
package and market. In an academic world stretched thin for financial resources,
kinesiology struggles to show its financial potential. Kinesiologists do produce social
capital; their research is tangible and offers a benefit to society at large, but it largely
goes unnoticed (Lawson, n.d). Kinesiology then appears as an immature field, lacking a
central vision and leaving fellow academics, administrators, and the general public
struggling to understand its unique purpose (Lawson, n.d.). Thus, leading to the view of
kinesiology as “little more than jargon and gibberish”.
Such struggles are not new for those in kinesiology, only exacerbated by changing
social conditions, including a disinvestment by government in higher education (White,
2010). The field has long attributed the problems of identity to the fragmentation among
the sub-disciplines (Gillis, 1987; Henry, 1978; Hoffman, 1985; Park, 1991, 1998; Rikli,
2006). Many prominent kinesiologists have proposed interdisciplinary research as a
viable path to the field’s re-unification (Gill, 2007; Kretchmar, 2005; K. M. Newell,
2007; Rikli, 2006). However, it appears the field is stuck, as there has been little research
examining interdisciplinary research in kinesiology.
To help address this gap in the literature, the overall objective of this dissertation
is to explore interdisciplinary research in kinesiology. The guiding motivation is to help
kinesiology strengthen its image and credibility in order to maximize its positive impact
on health, society, and quality of life. Fulfilling this desire is beyond the scope of any
4
single project, but my hope is that this dissertation will nudge the conversation past its
current stalled state. Specifically, the dissertation will summarize the body of literature,
outline trends, purpose a model for interdisciplinary research, describe incentives and
limitations, and identify areas for further investigation regarding interdisciplinary
research within the field of kinesiology (and possibly the broader academic community).
This will be accomplished by using a mixed-methods approach, consisting of two
separate but related studies. The aims are:
Study (1): To provide a descriptive review of interdisciplinary research in kinesiology.
Study (2): To explore the incentives and barriers of interdisciplinary research in
kinesiology.
5
References
Boone, T. (2009). Exercise science is not a sound college investment. Professionalization
of Exercise Physiology-online, 12(3), 1-10.
Gill, D. L. (2007). Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education.
Quest, 59(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552
Gillis, J. (1987). Telltale disseration in physical education: What do they say about
specialization? Quest, 39(2), 142-152. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483866
Henry, F. M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 1, 13-29. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Hoffman, S. J. (1985). Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 56(6), 19-22. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1985.10603786
Kretchmar, R. S. (2005). Jigsaw puzzles and river banks: Two ways of picturing our
future. Quest, 57(1), 171-177. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2005.10491851
Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59(1), 5-24.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483532
Park, R. J. (1991). On tilting windmills while facing armageddon. Quest, 43, 247-259.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Park, R. J. (1998). A house divided. Quest, 50(2), 213-224. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Rikli, R. E. (2006). Kinesiology - a "homeless" field: Addressing organization and
leadership needs. Quest, 58(3), 288-309. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491884
6
White, T. P. (2010). The changing state of state funding - opportunity and challenge.
Quest, 62, 4-9. doi: 10.1080%2F00336297.2010.10483628
Wojciechowska. (2010). A quickly growing major. Inside Higher Ed, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/11/kinesiology
7
Chapter 2. Review of Literature
8
Learning From the Past to Reunite the Present:
Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology
Abstract
With the growing popularity of kinesiology at the undergraduate level, one would expect
the field to be influential. Kinesiology, however, appears to be in a paradox. The
undergraduate popularity is not reflected in the rest of academia, or even the general
public, many of whom feel kinesiology is not a legitimate field. Part of kinesiology’s
problems may be due to the continued fragmentation among the sub-disciplines. Many
prominent kinesiologists have proposed interdisciplinary research as a viable path to the
field’s re-unification. Despite all of the discourse about this, however, the field appears to
be stuck. The lack of action could be due to the lack of clarity surrounding
interdisciplinary research, an often misunderstood and misapplied concept with deep
philosophical roots. This paper will explain interdisciplinary research and show its
importance to the future of kinesiology. In addition, the paper will give examples of
interdisciplinary research projects.
9
I do not claim to have originated any new principle or doctrine. I have
simply tried in my own way to apply the eternal truths to our daily life and
problems...The opinions I have formed and the conclusions I have arrived
at are not final. I may change them tomorrow. I have nothing new to teach
the world. (Gandhi, 2001, p. 306)
Gandhi (2001) often spoke that his approach to truth and nonviolence was not
something new. He discouraged people from labeling the movement “Gandhism”,
humbly stating that the ideas he championed, while powerful enough to topple the British
Empire, were not his own. Gandhi learned from the past, listened to the many that came
before him, and used his spirituality to unleash the largest, most powerful acts of
nonviolent resistance in history.
Gandhi never overtly spoke on the importance of physical activity, but his
wisdom appears to be just as applicable within kinesiology in terms of respecting the
past. With regards to sub-discipline fragmentation or interdisciplinary research (IDR) in
kinesiology, I have nothing new to share. One just needs to glance through the last fifty
years of literature to see that kinesiology suffers from over-specialization and
fragmentation (e.g., Henry, 1978; Hoffman, 1985; Kretchmar, 2005; K. M. Newell, 1990,
2007; Rikli, 2006). Similarly, one just needs to overhear university administrators to
know that IDR is rapidly becoming the norm (Rhoten & Parker, 2004). Yet, I feel that
something is still missing.
Many prominent kinesiologists have spoken on this topic before, but there are
many parts that have not been put together. For example, kinesiologists often discuss IDR
10
as important, yet never define or operationalize IDR. In addition, while individuals in
kinesiology know the history of fragmentation and understand the popularity of IDR,
little research has been done to show how the two together can help rectify the slippery
problem of reuniting kinesiology back under a single identity. I feel this is partially due to
a lack of understanding of how the pieces are woven together, seeing how the
philosophical nature of IDR can help illuminate the problems and bridge disciplinary
fragmentation. By learning from the past, listening to those who have come before, and
respecting the nature of each sub-discipline, kinesiology can come together.
The aim of this review is to evaluate the literature pertaining to IDR and its
importance within the field of kinesiology. First, I will try to clarify the abstract notions
of interdisciplinarity (ID) and IDR, distinguishing both from related concepts. I will then
describe the history of specialization and fragmentation within the field of kinesiology. I
will end by showing the importance of IDR in kinesiology, and give examples of
successful collaborations.
Interdisciplinarity
As illustrated in the Chronicle for Higher Education (Basken, 2012a, 2012b;
Jacobs, 2009; Ruse, 2010), IDR discourse fills the halls of academe and it is required in
National Science Foundation (NSF) grant applications. Despite all the chatter, ID remains
mysterious to academics and administrators, often ambiguous and misunderstood. Thus,
before delving into the importance of IDR in kinesiology, one needs a clear
understanding of ID, and its subsequent role in research.
11
What exactly is ID? The answer depends on whom you ask. Currently, among
academic scholars, there is no agreed upon definition or application. Instead, there are
numerous, often competing, classifications in operation (Klein, 1990; Lattuca, 2001;
Moran, 2010). For example, ID:
 involves two or more academic, scientific, or artistic disciplines
("Interdisciplinarity," n.d.).
 suggests forging connections across the different disciplines, but it can
also mean establishing a kind of undisciplined space in the interstices
between disciplines, or even attempting to transcend disciplinary
boundaries altogether (Moran, 2010, p. 15).
 is direct or indirect use of knowledge, methods, techniques, devices (or
other products) as a result of scientific and technological activities in other
fields (Tijssen, 1992).
 is a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates information,
data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or
more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance
fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are
beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice
(Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2005, p. 2).
Klein (1990) explained much of the confusion is due to ID’s philosophical nature,
which in turn, is affected by the conflicting opinions of its origin. Some scholars argue
that ID has ancient roots, extending back to “interdisciplinary thinkers” like Plato,
Aristotle, Rabelais, Kant, and Hegel, who each in their own way, viewed knowledge as
unified and/or relational (Klein, 1990; Lattuca, 2001). Others dismiss the relevance of
tracing ID back to the ancient Greeks because individual disciplines were not common
until the nineteenth century (Lattuca, 2001). W. T. Newell (1998) even suggested
distinguishing between ID and predisciplinarity because, “the interdisciplinary
motivation to seek perspective would have little urgency prior to the distinctive
worldviews of reductionist disciplines” (p. 533). Scholars like W.T. Newell view ID as a
12
modern phenomenon, beginning in the twentieth century (i.e., 1930s) as a strategy to
reform higher educational systems by promoting disciplinary integration (Klein, 1990;
Lattuca, 2001). Thus, depending on one’s historical stance, ID can be seen as either the
purest form of knowledge (i.e., ancient perspective) or as a tool to enhance, organize, and
understand disciplinary knowledge (i.e., modern perspective; Moran, 2010).
While the arguments muddy the definition(s) of ID, there are identified common
characteristics. Klein (1990) explained that ID integrates material from multiple fields of
knowledge into a new, single, coherent entity. Lattuca (2001) simply stated that ID is the
interaction of different disciplines. Moran (2010) added ID centers on problems that
cannot be addressed or solved with only disciplinary knowledge; there is a need for an
all-inclusive synthesis. These authors all suggest that interdisciplinary projects emphasize
integration over discrete disciplinary studies. This is an important distinction from
multidisciplinarity (MD), which also involve multiple fields but in an additive instead of
integrative manner (Klein, 1990). While it is frequently used interchangeably with ID,
MD makes no attempt to combine knowledge; rather the collaboration is a series of
separate parts joined under a common title. Rossini and Porter (1984) likened ID as a
seamless woven garment that stands in contrast to the patchwork quilt that is MD.
Fueled by the proliferation of disciplines and scholarship, other terms similar to
ID have become popular. Cross-disciplinarity (CD) is when scholars work in
unidirectional cooperation, explaining aspects of one discipline with another (Klein,
1990). Cross-disciplinary subject areas are often considered “sub-fields” of a parent
discipline, for example, biochemistry, history of science, and psychology of exercise.
13
Transdisciplinarity (TD) is an idealized and abstract form of ID, far more comprehensive
in scope and vision than any other previous forms of knowledge discussed. It extends
beyond traditional discipline boundaries to create an overarching synthesis that
transcends any known paradigm or framework (Klein, 1990; Lattuca, 2001). Finally,
intradisciplinary (ITD) has been suggested to refer to the synthesis of sub-disciplines
within a broader discipline (Reeve, 2007), thus emphasizing the relatedness of the subdisciplines.
However, ITD has not been mentioned elsewhere in the literature.
Recently, scholars have challenged the arguments surrounding ID, feeling the
traditional concept of ID, may no longer be adequate (Klein, 2000). This is partially due
to the increase in communication technology that has made collaboration easier among
different areas (i.e., academic disciplines, technological fields, and private sectors;
Spirduso, 2009). Yet this expansion seems to have created even more ambiguity. Trying
to move away from defined labels, ID now focuses more on the integration of different
bodies of knowledge, rather than emphasizing the merging of disciplinary boundaries
(Committee on Science, 2005). Not having to worry about definitional boundaries allows
for greater, albeit subtle, flexibility, which allows ID to vary in the way it is organized
and conducted.
Interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinary research applies ID to scholarly
research. It is challenging to translate the philosophical theory into practice, regardless of
the ID definition chosen, because the concepts are not typically based on real-world
observations (Lattuca, 2001). Despite the difficulty, there have been several scholars who
14
have suggested operationalized, “working definitions” of IDR by combining
characteristics of several theoretical definitions.
Following a systematic review of 14 different separate definitions, Aboelela et al.
(2007) created a definition of IDR, which was then examined by 12 experts in science
and health IDR. The following working definition is the result of their work:
Interdisciplinary research is any study or group of studies undertaken by
scholars from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. The research is
based upon a conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical
frameworks from those disciplines, uses study design and methodology
that is not limited to any one field, and require the use of perspective and
skills of the involved disciplines throughout phases of the research
process. (Aboelela, et al., 2007, p. 341)
The definition is similar to the Committee on Science, Engineering, and
Public Policy’s (2005) definition quoted in the previous section. However, the
Committee’s definition acknowledges an individual’s ability to conduct IDR. The
Committee’s definition was part of a larger report on IDR that also consisted of a
thorough review of the current definitions, strengths, and challenges of IDR. The
authors concluded that IDR is an integral part of research and academic training,
and while there are challenges, the Committee felt IDR was beneficial for
students, faculty, and the greater researcher community (e.g., funders, government
agencies). The report was also reviewed by a panel of experts, and has since been
adopted by the NSF.
15
In addition, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognizes IDR as an
important aspect of the advancement of knowledge, making it a priority in its
recent Roadmap, a strategic plan for future NIH funding
(http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/). The NIH acknowledges that many
scientific questions cannot be answered by a single discipline, thus a goal of
NIH’s IDR program is to shift the academic culture towards interdisciplinary
approaches and diverse scientific teams
(http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/interdisciplinary/). However, the NIH requirements
have been vague, requiring clarifying statements on the Request for Applications
(Huerta et al., 2005). Regardless, the NIH’s support and grant money available for
IDR has helped to elevate IDR as a necessity in scientific research (Freeman,
2012; Giacobbi, Buman, Romney, Klatt, & Stoddard, 2012).
The previous working definitions describe IDR, but they do not specify the degree
of IDR. Recognizing this gap after an extensive literature review, Lattuca (2001)
developed an IDR typology scheme. The typology categories were also informed by
Lattuca interviews with 38 faculty members, selected for their research and teaching
characteristics. Lattuca asked the participants to describe their own accounts of IDR and
teaching. From this plethora of information Lattuca developed a four category IDR
typology: 1) Informed Disciplinarity, 2) Synthetic Interdisciplinarity, 3)
Transdisciplinarity, and 4) Conceptual Disciplinarity. While the categories are distinct,
the typologies might be better conceptualized as a continuum, from less interdisciplinary
(i.e., Informed Disciplinarity) to virtually discipline-less (i.e., Conceptual Disciplinarity).
16
Interestingly, Lattuca (2001) noticed that the participants approached IDR in
similar fashion to research design, their research question(s) determined the appropriate
IDR method. By examining the research question, Lattuca could more easily classify the
research.
Interdisciplinary research typologies. Informed Disciplinarity is similar to
cross-disciplinarity, the research question is discipline-based but may be supplemented
and informed by concepts or theories from a different discipline (Lattuca, 2001). For
example, an exercise psychologist may measure societal or environmental barriers to help
understand an individual’s motivation to be physically active. While it draws from
outside of the discipline, the borrowed tools are only being used in the context of
psychology.
Synthetic Interdisciplinarity is similar to multi-disciplinary, the research question
links disciplines together (Lattuca, 2001). Questions are found at the intersections or gaps
of multiple disciplines. Continuing with the previous example, a Synthetic
Interdisciplinarity approach examines both the complexities of an individual’s social
capital and its potential influence on motivation to participate in physical activity. This
moves up the IDR continuum, connecting together theories and conceptual models from
multiple disciplines, instead of just borrowing variables. In addition, Synthetic
Interdisciplinarity can be done in research teams, where each member makes a
disciplinary contribution.
According to Lattuca (2001), transdisciplinarity is similar to interdisciplinary.
These research questions apply theories, concepts, or methods across disciplines with the
17
intent of developing an overarching synthesis. It differs from the previous two typologies
because it is not borrowing from one discipline and applying it to another, but rather
combining frameworks in a unique way that transcends any individual discipline. A
Transdisciplinarity approach might strive to combine societal and cognitive factors
together, like social capital and motivation, forming a new single social-psychological
framework to examine an individual’s participation in physical activity.
Conceptual Interdisciplinarity is similar to the originally described
transdisciplinary (as opposed to Lattuca’s [2001] Transdisciplinarity typology),
conducting research without any disciplinary basis. It also resembles Grounded Theory
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), where research is approached without any predetermined lens
or theoretical basis. Yet, this type of research often implies a critique of disciplinary
contributions, as most scholars employ a postmodernist, feminist, and/or cultural studies
approach (Lattuca, 2001). In practice, Conceptual Interdisciplinarity appears difficult to
apply, in fact, Lattuca (2001) did not have any specific examples. Thus, it appears that
Conceptual Interdisciplinarity is an ideal mindset towards research, whereas the previous
three typologies are operationalized approaches.
Lattuca’s (2001) typologies label most research as IDR, but the categories do
cover all of the mentioned characteristics of interdisciplinary, crossdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. By viewing all IDR research as a continuum
such work is easier to comprehend and classify.
18
The Structure of Kinesiology
It is necessary to explain kinesiology’s structure and history, before the
importance of IDR in kinesiology can be fully understood. According to Hoffman and
Harris (2013), the field of kinesiology has seven main sub-disciplinary areas:
Biomechanics, History of Physical Activity, Motor Behavior, Philosophy of Physical
Activity, Physiology of Physical Activity, Sport and Exercise Psychology, and Sociology
of Physical Activity. Although others recognize the existence of additional subdisciplinary
areas (e.g., Kinesmetrics [Zhu, 2010], Pedagogy [Freeman, 2012], Physical
Activity Epidemiology [Dishman, Heath, & Lee, 2013], and Sport Management and
Administration [Zeigler, 2003]). Cardinal and Lee (2013) also categorized 14 different
sub-disciplines from the Research Consortium’s (RC) annual program from 1992-2011.
In addition to the sub-disciplines previously described, Cardinal and Lee (2013) listed
dance, leisure and recreation, and interdisciplinary as sub-disciplines on the RC program.
However, some sub-disciplines appeared relatively recently, Physical Activity
Epidemiology (2011) and Sport Management and Administration (2000). Cardinal and
Lee (2013) also observed that certain sub-discipline categories changed over time to be
more inclusive (e.g., “Exercise Physiology and Fitness” [2000-2011] versus “Exercise
Physiology” [1992-1999]).
The sub-disciplines reflect the areas of specialization within kinesiology. In
kinesiology, specialization refers to the use of content and methodologies of a “parent
discipline” (e.g., biomechanics, physiology, psychology, statistics) to the study of
physical activity (Henry, 1964; Hoffman, 1985). Specialization is important because it
19
allows kinesiologists to explore and understand the intricacies of physical activity from
the macro (societal) to the micro (genetics) levels. In addition, specialization within
kinesiology is responsible for the continued production of a body of knowledge, which is
necessary for legitimacy in higher education (Henry, 1964, 1978). Each sub-discipline’s
body of knowledge provides a distinctive lens through which to view physical activity,
thereby uniquely contributing to the overall understanding of physical activity.
The growing number and increasing diversity of the sub-disciplines reflects the
complex, dynamic nature of kinesiology (Hoffman & Harris, 2013). Although physical
activity is not a new phenomenon, it continues to be studied by more individuals, who in
turn, generate new knowledge. This new knowledge increases the prospect of new subdisciplines,
focal points within sub-disciplines (i.e., sub-disciplines within subdisciplines),
and/or even professional applications stemming from the evolution of the
knowledge base. It is widely believed that kinesiology will continue to grow and become
more specialized in the coming years (Hoffman & Harris, 2013).
Kinesiology: Problems with Fragmentation
Due to the variety of subject areas represented by the sub-disciplines, kinesiology
by definition is multidisciplinary (Bories & Swanson, 2005; Spirduso, 2009). The subdisciplines
different bodies of knowledge all contribute separately to the understanding of
physical activity. Ideally, the sub-disciplines would interact often, combining disciplinary
knowledge through the different types of IDR described in the previous section.
However, the sub-disciplines instead seem to isolate themselves in silos making basic
communication, let alone cohesion, challenging. This has shaped kinesiology into a set of
20
narrowly focused sub-disciplines, which is reflected in research production and graduate
program preparation (Thomas, 1987). Thus, kinesiologists struggle with weaving together
the specializations into a broader physical activity framework (Thomas, 1987).
It is important to note that specialization itself does not automatically insinuate
isolation; rather, fragmentation causes isolation. According to Thomas (1987)
fragmentation refers to, “a part that is broken off or detached from the whole” (p. 115).
Fragmentation occurs within an academic discipline when individuals become so
specialized within a sub-discipline that they view their interests as distinct, removed of
any perceived commonalties with other sub-disciplines (Edwards, 1989). In other words,
specialists in kinesiology have lost the understanding of how their area of concentration
fits within the larger physical activity framework (Thomas, 1987). For example, a
researcher might identify as a physiologist studying the effects of exercise, instead of a
kinesiologist who focuses on the physiological aspects of physical activity.
The language of fragmentation may appear subtle, but it alludes to the valuing of
the parent discipline’s body of knowledge over kinesiology, further separating
individuals from different sub-disciplines (Edwards, 1989). Rikli (2006) even stated that
“few kinesiology faculty, it seems, are paying attention to the ‘big picture’ overall
purpose and mission of the field, especially to its initial purpose of promoting ‘physical
activity for the good of the masses’” (p. 292). This lack of attention to the importance of
physical activity constrains communication between faculty in different sub-disciplines
(Gillis, 1987). It also undermines the strength of kinesiology’s MD by chipping away at
21
the centrality of physical activity, the unifying thread connecting the sub-disciplines
together.
At this point, it is necessary to clarify additional vocabulary. Within the literature,
many scholars refer to the profession of kinesiology as different from the discipline of
kinesiology. Corbin (1993) defined the discipline as the study and production of the body
of knowledge, whereas the profession refers to the application of knowledge (e.g.,
practitioners, programs, clients, methods). However, both the discipline and the
profession fall under the general field of kinesiology (Corbin, 1993). A field is the
combination of “disciplinarians and professionals each fulfilling different important roles
while working toward common goals” (Corbin, 1993, p. 88). The sub-disciplines are
specializations of the discipline, and sub-specializations are specializations of the subdisciplines.
Regardless of the categorization, everyone associated with the field of
kinesiology should be working towards the common goal of understanding and
promoting physical activity. Fragmentation occurs when the common goal is lost among
the disciplinarians and/or the professionals.
Fragmentation, however, is not a new problem within kinesiology. McCloy
(1930) stressed the importance of integration in physical education (from which
kinesiology evolved) by recommending all scientific research begin with a well thought
out philosophy, defined as an endeavor to present an integrated whole that must be
adequately explained. Henry (1964) is credited with jump-starting specialization within
the field. Henry (1964, 1978) argued that specialization was needed for kinesiology to
increase credibility and legitimacy within academia. An organized academic field solely
22
devoted to the study of physical education and activity was needed because, while other
scientific disciplines (e.g., anatomy, physiology, psychology) studied humans, none
specialized in physical education or activity (Henry, 1964). Increasing the specialized
knowledge would help legitimize the field of physical education within academia.
However, Henry (1964, 1978) adamantly warned against aligning with the parent
discipline over the centralizing focus of physical activity. Such a view would diminish
the common thread binding the sub-disciplines together. Henry (1964) insisted the
emphasis stay on physical activity and understanding its different components, thereby
maintaining a central focus or mission.
The field quickly responded to Henry’s (1964) challenge to become more
academically focused (often separating the profession and the disciple). Sub-disciplines
quickly began to organize and specialize, however Henry’s (1964) warning about
discipline loyalty was seemingly disregarded, even when it was repeated several years
later (Henry, 1978). Fragmentation quickly spread through departments as each subdiscipline
aligned itself more strongly with the parent discipline at the expense of
physical education (Henry, 1978; Hoffman, 1985).
An identity crisis: Problems associated with fragmentation. Without physical
activity as the central focus, kinesiology is left without a clear general purpose or guiding
objectives (Rikli, 2006). Thus, kinesiology appears to be experiencing an identity crisis.
Within higher education, the identity crisis has made kinesiology an attractive target for
restructuring, downsizing, or even elimination (Rikli, 2006). For example, over the past
two decades, 12 kinesiology programs on the west coast of the United States were either
23
eliminated or significantly downsized (Rikli, 2006). Administrative “restructuring” was
typically not due to a lack of skilled faculty or productivity. Scanlan (1998) described the
demise of the Kinesiology Department at the University of California, Los Angeles,
admitting that the department had brilliant physiologists and neuroscientists, but strayed
dramatically from the central mission of human movement, leading faculty to drift
towards the parent disciplines. This eventually led to the administration dissolving the
department.
Park (1998) cautioned that without the ability to show a significant, relevant, and
integrated body of knowledge (similar to engineering or computer science), kinesiology
will struggle to secure a continued presence on university and college campuses. In
addition, Knudson (2005) echoed that the absence of clear research outcomes and
effectiveness of services provided by kinesiology professions have eroded support for
kinesiology undergraduate and graduate programs.
Fragmentation has not been limited to the sub-disciplines; it has also created a
split between the profession (i.e., practitioners) and discipline (i.e., researchers).
However, instead of losing sight of physical activity’s importance, practitioners view
kinesiology’s academic research as unhelpful or irrelevant to their role within the field
(K. M. Newell, 1990, 2007). This is worrisome because the practitioners are often the
public face of the field; if they are disconnected from the discipline, then it may
negatively affect the public’s image of the entirety of kinesiology. To bridge this gap K.
M. Newell (1990, 2007) suggested several changes to reunite the field back under the
common umbrella of physical activity (e.g., centrality of physical activity, emphasize
24
similarities between sub-disciplines, enhance lifespan emphasis). Similar to Corbin
(1993), if both researchers and practitioners see themselves as students of physical
activity, then a common, shared language can be developed. Closing the gap would only
strengthen kinesiology’s influence and status within academia and the public, helping to
strengthen the legitimacy of both researchers and practitioners. The details of achieving
this challenging task are still vague, but unifying the sub-disciplines could help.
Park (1998) expanded that if the prominent leaders within the sub-disciplines
could agree on a unifying focus and identity, kinesiology could show its value as a
distinct discipline, increasing its influence within academia and the public. This was not
to discredit the sub-disciplines’ individual contributions or importance, as each uncovers
different aspects of physical activity. In fact, Edwards (1989) notes that “both approaches
[specialization and generalization] are mutually beneficial and serve to move the
profession forward” (p.79). Without a common focus for the entire field, however, the
innovations and research discovered by the sub-disciplines can get lost or misconstrued
as another discipline. This dilutes kinesiology’s identity as the leader in physical activity
and exercise. Thus, similar to Hoffman’s (1985) warnings a decade before, Park (1998)
cautioned that if kinesiology did not decide to become the leader in physical activity,
another field would at the expense of kinesiology.
Unfortunately, Park’s (1998) prophecy is being fulfilled. Knudson (2005)
described that of many the “discoveries in applied research in physical activity are made
in other allied health fields (i.e., fitness boom of the late 20th
century, associations
between physical activity and morbidity/mortality, and the current epidemic of obesity
25
and diabetes), it appears that kinesiology faculty are on the sideline and not major players
in addressing these health issues” (p. 215). Knudson blamed this outcome on prestigious
academic journals over-emphasizing the importance of theoretical over applied research,
shifting academic prestige and tenure towards the former at the expense of the latter.
Without highlighting the importance of both ends of the research spectrum (applied to
basic/pure science), kinesiology professionals risk being left out of important public
health policy and programmatic decisions.
It appears that Henry’s proclamation in 1964 of nearly five decades ago has fallen
on deaf ears. Despite continuous warning over the dangers, kinesiology continues to
struggle to balance specialization without fragmentation.
Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology
Despite the vast amount of commentary and worry on kinesiology’s specialization
and fragmentation, Rikli (2006) argued there has been “little evidence in the literature of
a proposed strategy or a recommended plan of action to accomplish this goal” (p. 295).
While there is no formal plan, many prominent kinesiologists have suggested IDR as a
viable solution to reconnect the field. K. M. Newell (1990) first promoted crossdisciplinary
research or IDR as a way to help close the growing chasms and reunite the
field. Park (1991) also argued that kinesiology should focus its collective strengths and
devote more time to fostering research that can benefit the entire field, not just one
component.
Yet for such a critical and much discussed resolution, little research has been done
to truly advance or evaluate solutions (Park, 2011). For example, within the field of
26
kinesiology, it is currently unknown how much IDR is being produced, who is producing
IDR, and the challenges or barriers relating to IDR.
Kinesiology, however, should not only focus on IDR within the subdisciplines.
This would limit IDR to one end of Lattuca’s (2001) IDR continuum (i.e., Informed
Disciplinarity and Synthetic Interdisciplinary). By partnering with researchers in other
fields, kinesiologists could expand research IDR beyond its sub-disciplinary silos, and
move up the IDR continuum. Partnerships between fields can transcend individual field
limitations, which is necessary to help solve some of the world’s complex, multifaceted
public health and social problems (e.g., increasing sedentary behavior; Gill, 2007).
Although it must be noted that there are potential pitfalls when such approaches are
pursued. For example, partnering with other fields may increase the possibility of losing
physical activity as a central focus (Gill, 2007; Rikli, 2006).
Examples of interdisciplinary research in kinesiology. While the research
surrounding IDR is vague, there have been examples of collaborations in kinesiology.
The following are by no means exhaustive lists of all IDR in the field; instead, they are
meant to serve as examples, a sampling of the possibilities available with IDR. The
examples will show IDR in the discipline, profession, and the field.
In their review of RC abstracts, Cardinal and Lee (2013) found evidence that all
but one of the highest visible researchers on the RC program during the 20-year timespan
1992-2011 were bridging sub-disciplines to present physical activity research outside
their “home” sub-discipline. The average was presenting research across 5.62 (SD = 2.75)
sub-disciplinary areas, with the range being 1-12. Moreover, several of those involved in
27
presenting research across sub-disciplinary areas were also leading researching within a
given sub-disciplinary area or two (Cardinal & Lee, 2013). While it is unknown the
degree of the IDR, it is promising that highly visible and productive kinesiologists are
branching out into other sub-disciplines, either independently or through collaboration.
This could influence others to follow, increasing IDR throughout the field. This concept
has been further promoted through the thematic (vs. sub-disciplinary) approach to
conference programming since 2007 (Cardinal, 2007).
Focusing on bridging the gap between theory and practice through research,
Knudson (2005) suggested that the National Strength and Conditioning Association
(NSCA) is a leader in the field. The NSCA sponsors several levels of publications from
peer-reviewed, applied science journals to a web-based magazine for the public
(Knudson, 2005). This allows credible information to be disseminated to both academic
and professional audiences. The NSCA’s model is similar to the publication model of the
American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD),
which also offers a number of different types and levels of peer-reviewed journals
(Cardinal, 1995). However, the NSCA falls short by not stating IDR in the mission
statement of their journals; whereas AAPHERD’s Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport emphasizes the journal’s multi-disciplinary approach in its mission statement
(http://www.aahperd.org/rc/publications/rqes/index.cfm). Regardless, sponsoring several
different types of journals helps to make research relevant to the practitioner, helping to
strengthen the tie between the profession and the discipline.
28
The most impactful examples combine IDR in the discipline and the profession,
helping to increase the impact of IDR through closing the gap between knowledge and
application. The Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids program (SPARK) is one
of the more successful examples of IDR and practical application. In a review of
SPARK’s history and development McKenzie, Sallis, and Rosengard (2009) explained
that SPARK is an evidence-based PE program designed to increase activity levels
through both health-fitness based and motor skills activities; it was originally developed
in 1989 with a seven-year NIH grant. In addition, the original SPARK curriculum had
teacher training and taught self-management strategies (now referred to as lifelong
wellness skills), such as: behavioral contracting, self-monitoring, goal-setting, and
decision making (McKenzie, et al., 2009). The program design implemented knowledge
from multiple kinesiology sub-disciplines, especially motor behavior, physiology,
pedagogy, and psychology. The developers drew heavily on Social Cognitive Theory
(Bandura, 1977) to guide development, implementation, and dissemination (McKenzie, et
al., 2009). In addition, many of the research studies evaluating SPARK used Public
Health interventions and dissemination techniques (McKenzie, et al., 2009).
While the SPARK curriculum has gone through modifications since its inception,
the curriculum has had success in multiple areas, including, physical activity in PE,
physical fitness, motor skill development, enjoyment, and academic success (McKenzie,
et al., 2009). The SPARK program was originally developed for elementary schools, but
there has been some success in increasing physical activity in middle schools using this
approach too (McKenzie, et al., 2009). Research continues on the curriculum, but the
29
program is now commercialized and disseminated through SPORTIME, a publicly traded
company (McKenzie, et al., 2009). The success and longevity of the SPARK program
shows the power IDR when it is carefully designed and implemented.
Interdisciplinary research can involve individuals outside of an academic setting,
too. For example, Martin-Ginis (2012) summarized a community-university partnership
approach to help individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCI) become more physically
active. SCI Action Canada is a community-research partnership; it promotes physical
activity knowledge and participation among individuals living with SCI. The project is an
alliance of 16 organizations and 15 investigators from across Canada with a “common
mission of developing and mobilizing evidence-based strategies that inform, teach, and
enable people living with SCI to initiate and maintain a physically active lifestyle”
(Morten-Ginis, 2012, p. 191). The group created “The SCI Action Canada Research and
Knowledge Translation Program”, an operationalized blueprint for constructing
knowledge, and subsequently, translating that knowledge in a careful, deliberate way.
The blueprint included the following five principles: 1) Know you audience, 2) Identify
credible messengers, 3) Create audience-specific messages and practices, 4) Select
methods of delivery and implementation to targeted audiences, and 5) Evaluate
implementation effectiveness. The researchers shared responsibilities with each other and
the community members, giving everyone involved a greater sense of ownership.
Although this was not a traditional IDR project, no original data was collected and
analyzed; the structure of SCI Action Canada reveals the importance of IDR partnerships.
It shows that complex problems need teams from a multitude of areas, and not just from
30
within the academic setting. The projects goal was to help future SCI research become
successful, but these principles can be used by anyone wanting to pursue IDR with the
community. In addition to explaining the plan and partnership, Martin-Ginis shared some
insights into working with diverse research teams, mentioning that bringing together
different groups and researchers together presented challenges, but the relationships that
developed were priceless, both academically and personally.
Call to Action: Fear Inaction, Not Failure
Following his proclamation of not introducing anything new into the world,
Gandhi continued:
All I have done is to try experiments in [nonviolence and truth] on as vast a scale
as I could do. In doing so, I have sometimes erred and learnt by my errors. Life
and its problems have thus become to me so many experiments in the practice of
truth and nonviolence. (Gandhi, 2001, p. 306)
There is nothing left for those in kinesiology to do but begin experimenting.
The field’s problems are known and solutions have been offered.
Interdisciplinary research has been shown to be successful in producing effective
programs that help make positive changes in society. The future will determine if
IDR can reunite kinesiology, but we will never know unless we try on a much
larger scale. Thus, our fears should not be in failure, as we can always learn and
improve from unsuccessful projects. Rather, we should fear inaction, for only that
will guarantee our field’s inability to reunite and make society a better place.
31
References
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., . . .
Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a
critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329-346. doi:
10.111/j.1475 6773.2006.00621.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewoord Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Basken, P. (2012a, December 17). Interdisciplinary possibilities pull Caltech biologist to
U. of Southern California. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary/136323/
Basken, P. (2012b, February 13). National Science Foundation steps up its push for
interdisciplinary research. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/National-
Science-Foundation/130757/
Bories, T., & Swanson, L. (2005). The department of kinesiology: Practical suggestions
for enhancing interdisciplinary community. Chronicle of Kinesiology and
Physical Education in Higher Education, 16(3), 18-23.
Cardinal, B. J. (1995). Readability analysis of health, phyiscal education, recreation and
dance journal articles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 255-258. doi:
10.2466/pms/1995.80.1.255
Cardinal, B. J. (2007). Preface. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(1), AiiAv.
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2007.10599389
Cardinal, B. J., & Lee, H. (2013). Leading contributors to the Research Consortium's
annual program, 1992-2011: High-visibilty institutions, researchers, and topics.
32
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 74-87. doi:
10.1080/1091367x.2013.741371
Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary
research. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
Corbin, C. B. (1993). The field of physical education: Common goals, not common roles.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(1), 79-87. doi:
10.1080/07303084.1993.10606681
Dishman, R. K., Heath, G. W., & Lee, I. M. (2013). Physical activity epidemiology (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Edwards, W. H. (1989). Identifying the leaders in North American physical education:
Contemporary and all time notables. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 60(5), 77-79. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1989.10604457
Freeman, W. H. (2012). Physical education, exercise, and sport science in a changing
society (7th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Gandhi, M. K. (2001). M.K. Gandhi's experiments with truth. In G. Beckerlegge (Ed.),
The World Religions Reader (2nd ed., pp. 306). New York, NY: Routledge.
Giacobbi, P. R., Buman, M. P., Romney, K. J., Klatt, M. R., & Stoddard, M. J. (2012).
Scope, impact, and methods of National Institute of Health funded research in
kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 1, 118-128.
Gill, D. L. (2007). Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education.
Quest, 59(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552
33
Gillis, J. (1987). Telltale disseration in physical education: What do they say about
specialization? Quest, 39(2), 142-152. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483866
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Henry, F. M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, & Recreation, 35(7), 32-35, 69. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Henry, F. M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 1, 13-29. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Hoffman, S. J. (1985). Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 56(6), 19-22. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1985.10603786
Hoffman, S. J., & Harris, J. C. (2013). Introduction to kinesiology. In S. J. Hoffman
(Ed.), Introduction to kinesiology: Studying physical activity (4th ed., pp. 1-30).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Huerta, M. F., Farber, G. K., Wilder, E. L., Kleinman, D. V., Grady, P. A., Schwartz, D.
A., & Tabak, L. A. (2005). NIH roadmap interdisciplinary research initiatives.
PLoS Computational Biology, 1(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010059
Interdisciplinarity. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interdisciplinary
Jacobs, J. A. (2009, November 22). Interdisciplinary hype. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary-Hype/49191/
34
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2000). The conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P.
Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 3-24). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Knudson, D. (2005). Evidence-based practice in kinesiology: Theory to practice gap
revisited. Physical Educator, 62(4), 212-221.
Kretchmar, R. S. (2005). Jigsaw puzzles and river banks: Two ways of picturing our
future. Quest, 57(1), 171-177. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2005.10491851
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and
teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
McCloy, C. H. (1930). Professional progress through research. Research Quarterly, 1,
63-73.
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Rosengard, P. (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design,
development, and dissemination of the SPARK physical education program.
Quest, 61, 114-127. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2009.10483606
Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Morten-Ginis, K. A. (2012). Takin' it to the streets: A community-university partnership
approaches to physical activity research and knowledge translation. Kinesiology
Review, 1, 190-196.
Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest,
42(3), 227-242. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1990.10483997
35
Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59(1), 5-24.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483532
Newell, W. T. (1998). Professionalizing interdisciplinarity: Literature review and
research agenda. In J. T. Klein & W. Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from
literature (pp. 529-563). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Park, R. J. (1991). On tilting windmills while facing armageddon. Quest, 43, 247-259.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Park, R. J. (1998). A house divided. Quest, 50(2), 213-224. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Park, R. J. (2011). Historical reflections on diet, exercise, and obesity: The recurring need
to "put words into action.". Canadian Bulletin of Medical Humanities, 28, 383-
401.
Reeve, T. G. (2007). Kinesiology: Defining the academic core of our discipline. Quest,
59(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483531
Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path.
Science, 306, 2406. doi: 10.1126/science.1103628
Rikli, R. E. (2006). Kinesiology - a "homeless" field: Addressing organization and
leadership needs. Quest, 58(3), 288-309. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491884
Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. (1984). Interdisciplinary research: Performance and policy
issues. In J. H. Jurkovich & J. H. P. Paelinck (Eds.), Problems in interdisciplinary
studies (pp. 26-45). Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Company.
36
Ruse, M. (2010, December 9). Interdisciplinary studies. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/interdisciplinary-studies/29821
Scanlan, T. K. (1998). Thriving versus surviving. Quest, 50, 126-133. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484270
Spirduso, W. W. (2009). Staying afloat in an information-age sea change. Quest, 61, 5-
18. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2009.10483596
Thomas, J. R. (1987). Are we already in pieces, or just falling apart? Quest, 39, 114-121.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483863
Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in
science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research. Research
Policy, 21, 27-44.
Zeigler, E. F. (2003). Socio-cultural foundations of physical education and educational
sport. Aechen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Zhu, W. (2010). Birth, growth, and challenges of ‚"Kinesmetrics" in the USA. Annales
Kinesiologie, 1(2), 95-111.
37
Chapter 3. Manuscript 1
38
Uncovering the Patterns of Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology
Abstract
Purpose: Interdisciplinary research (IDR) has been proposed as a strategy for
strengthening the field of kinesiology, a strategy to unite the fragmented sub-disciplines.
Yet little is actually known about IDR in kinesiology. This study provides a descriptive
review (audit) of IDR in kinesiology, and it further proposes an initial model of IDR in
kinesiology. Method: A stratified-random sample of journal articles (n = 552) were
selected from kinesiology-focused journals (n = 10) from the years 2008 to 2012. Articles
were coded on a variety variables characterizing the authors and the nature of the
research. Acceptable inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.72 – 1.0) and intra-rater reliability (κ =
0.82 – 1.0) ensured accurate coding. Results: Authors were primarily publishing
disciplinary research (78.8%) versus IDR (21.2%). The majority of research was
biophysical (67.2%), quantitative (94.5%), and funded (52.7%). Authors from
kinesiology departments published just over half the journal articles (57.4%). There was
little significant change in the authors or research variables across time. The prediction
model for IDR selected by the step-wise regression (R2
= 0.52, p < 0.001) had three
predictor variables: behavior epidemiology framework, theoretical framework, and
disciplinary focus. Conclusions: Despite increased demand for IDR and kinesiology’s
inherent multidisciplinary nature, disciplinary research prevails in the field.
39
Writing at the cusp of World War II, Virginia Woolf argued against the
traditional, autocratic, and sexist nature of English higher education:
The aim of the new college, the cheap college, should be not to segregate and
specialize, but to combine. It should explore the ways in which mind and body
can be made to cooperate; discover what new combinations make good wholes in
human life (Woolf, 1952, p. 62).
Woolf’s vision for a college focused on creating a new learning environment, a place
where academics could come together to explore life’s greatest mysteries. Decades
removed from Woolf’s writings, collaboration is becoming a reality as higher education
is increasingly incorporating interdisciplinary goals into research, teaching, and funding
expectations (Basken, 2012a, 2012b; Jacobs, 2009; Ruse, 2010). For example, Severin
(2013) explained that several prominent universities in the United States have begun
“cluster hiring”, or hiring multiple faculty into interdisciplinary research (IDR) centers, to
help address complex problems (e.g., global climate change, food security, health care).
Sevrin suggested that cluster hiring, and by association IDR, reflects the expectations of
an increasingly collaborative world.
Despite the growing importance of IDR in academia, it is rarely explained or
operationalized. This is understandable because there is no agreed upon definition or
application for IDR. Instead, there are numerous, and often competing, classifications
(Klein, 1990; Lattuca, 2001; Moran, 2010). This is because the concepts are
philosophical in nature and not typically based on real-world observations (Lattuca,
2001).
40
Despite the difficulty, there have been several scholars who have suggested
operationalized, “working definitions” of IDR by combining characteristics of several
theoretical definitions (Aboelela et al., 2007; Committee on Science, 2005; Lattuca,
2001). Lattcua (2001) developed a four category IDR typology based on a study’s
research question(s): Informed Disciplinarity (i.e., discipline-based but may be
supplemented and informed by concepts or theories from a different discipline), Synthetic
Interdisciplinarity (i.e., links disciplines together, questions are found at the intersections
or gaps of multiple disciplines), Transdisciplinarity (i.e., applies theories, concepts, or
methods across disciplines with the intent of developing an overarching synthesis), and
Conceptual Disciplinarity (i.e., no disciplinary basis). It should be noted that Conceptual
Disciplinarity is an ideal framework for research, and thus, might be hard to
operationalize. The typologies can be conceptualized as a continuum, from less
interdisciplinary (i.e., Informed Disciplinarity) to virtually discipline-less (i.e.,
Conceptual Disciplinarity).
Conceptualizing IDR can help reveal its applicability to a given academic field.
Within kinesiology, IDR has been discussed as one viable solution to the field’s
fragmentation (Gill, 2007; Kretchmar, 2005; Newell, 2007; Reeve, 2007). Unlike
Woolf’s vision, kinesiology is not operating as a collaborative, unified body. Similar to
other academic fields, there are deep divisions among, and even within, sub-disciplines.
Yet, perhaps ironically, kinesiology is multidisciplinary by nature (Bories & Swanson,
2005), with sub-disciplines in the physical sciences (e.g., biomechanics, physiology),
social/behavioral sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology), and humanities (e.g., history,
41
philosophy). This gives the appearance, at least superficially, of an IDR “cluster” similar
to that described by Severin (2013).
Unfortunately, the sub-disciplines often operate in isolation, creating individual
knowledge silos, causing fragmentation and making cohesion challenging. To further
aggravate the situation, fragmentation causes researchers to remain more loyal to their
sub-discipline and/or parent-discipline rather than to the broader field of kinesiology
(Edwards, 1989). As a result, kinesiology lacks a central, unifying mission directing its
purpose and clarifying its objectives to outsiders (Park, 1998; Rikli, 2006), creating a de
facto identity crisis, a challenge other IDR clusters may also face. Within higher
education, kinesiology’s lack of identity has made the field a target for restructuring,
downsizing, or even elimination (Hoffman, 1985; Rikli, 2006). For example, Rikli noted
that over the past two decades, 12 kinesiology programs on the west coast of the United
States were either eliminated or significantly downsized.
It is important to note that sub-discipline fragmentation is not a new problem for
those in kinesiology. Since at least the time of McCloy (1930) and accelerating since
Henry (1964, 1978), kinesiology has struggled to develop a common identity among its
sub-disciplines. Many kinesiologists reinforced Henry’s views, expressing their own
concerns about the fragmentation. For example, Bressan (1979) argued that kinesiology
had to refocus the sub-disciplines, fixing the schisms that had been artificially created.
Similarly, Hoffman (1985) worried about field’s ability to survive without a more holistic
approach to producing knowledge and training graduate students.
42
Yet, for such a critical and much discussed topic there has been little done to
understand IDR in kinesiology, it is not even known if IDR is beneficial for kinesiology.
This gap between the hypothetical and reality must be bridged before IDR can be
promoted as a way to help kinesiology’s fragmentation. This daunting task cannot be
started before a preliminary survey (or audit) of IDR in kinesiology has been completed.
Currently, in kinesiology, it is not known what IDR is being done and what it entails
(e.g., study designs, populations, sub-disciplines involved, theories).
Rhodes and Nasuti (2011) made an initial step toward this goal by capturing
research trends in physical activity psychology from 1990-2008. Relating to IDR, the
authors showed significant growth in multi-theory and environmental approaches to
research questions. Despite the promising signs of IDR, however, Rhodes and Nasuti’s
study was restricted to only one kinesiology sub-discipline. In addition, neither Rhodes
and Nasusti nor anyone else has purposed a model of what factors significantly predict
IDR in kinesiology.
Similar to Rhodes and Nasuti’s (2011) study, a descriptive assessment of IDR
over time for all of kinesiology can help identify important characteristics and trends,
helping to clarify IDR’s role and inform future research. In addition, the results might
help other IDR clusters that face similar challenges. Thus, the purpose of this study was
to (1) begin addressing the gap in the literature by providing a descriptive review of IDR
in kinesiology and (2) to propose an initial model of IDR in kinesiology.
43
Method
Sample. As shown in Table 1.1, articles were selected from kinesiology-focused
journals (n = 10) published from 2008 to 2012. Journals were included on the basis of
their interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary editorial mission statement (Appendix A). To
ensure the selected journals fulfilled the desired requirements, an expert panel composed
of five diverse kinesiology faculty members who were not affiliated with the study
reviewed the journals (Appendix B). The panelists have 157 total years of experience (M
= 31.4 years of experience) from across a range of disciplinary areas, academic ranks,
and administrative levels of experience. They represent different regions of the USA and
two different countries (Canada and USA), as well as different levels of institutions (i.e.,
private liberal arts, regional comprehensive, and major research university). Both men
and women were included on the panel. They also each have some degree of
interdisciplinary in their academic preparation, teaching, and/or scholarship. In addition,
a journal had to be indexed in at least one major database (e.g., PubMed, MEDLINE,
SPORTDiscus). While not representative of all kinesiology journals, the sample had both
domestic and international journals, as well as journals with research- and/or appliedfoci.
Finally, the journals deliberately varied in number of years published (8-83 years),
annual issues published (4-16), and 2012 impact factors (N/A-4.475).
A stratified-random sample of journal articles were selected from each journal
(Table 1.2). The sampling frame included all research articles printed from the selected
journals throughout the 5-year time period. Reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries,
letters, editorials, conference abstracts, book reviews, notes, corrections, retractions, and
44
supplemental publications were not evaluated and were eliminated from the sampling
frame. The total population of articles (N = 5521) were analyzed separately by year.
Since the range of articles varied greatly, proportional allocation was used for
determining the sample size of each stratum (journal), ensuring a more accurate
representation of articles based on publishing rate (Lohr, 2010). Ten percent of the
published articles from each journal were randomly selected for each year’s sample
(Table 1.3). Based on simple-random sample calculations, the sample’s confidence
intervals ranged from 8.3 to 9.5 percent (Table 1.3). The stratification system employed
should explain additional variance not accounted for in a simple random sample, thus the
actual confidence intervals were likely narrower (Lohr, 2010).
Coding. The coding protocol (Appendix C) required the coder to first determine
if each selected article met the inclusion requirements. Next, the corresponding author’s
demographics were recorded. Following other discipline-based review studies (Rhodes &
Nasuti, 2011; Sanson-Fisher, Campbell, Htun, Bailey, & Millar, 2008), a number of
variables were recorded to uncover patterns in interdisciplinary research, including:
(sub)discipline, region, research design, and theory (Table 1.5).
The study also used the behavioral epidemiology framework (BEF) as a way to
organize and view the research (Sallis, Owen, & Fotheringham, 2000). The BEF has five
phases: (1) establish links between physical activity and outcome(s), (2) develop and
apply measurements, (3) identify factors that influence physical activity, (4) evaluate
interventions that promote physical activity, and (5) translate research into practice. The
framework provides clearly defined operational boundaries. The BEF phase was coded
45
using Sallis et al.’s classification scheme, and if a study fell into more than one category,
the highest category was used.
Following the initial coding, the type of research was determined (e.g.,
interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, disciplinary). Due to the convoluted nature of
defining IDR, this study used Lattcua’s (2001) four category typology described above.
Data analysis. Prior to the main analyses, and in an attempt to minimize bias,
intra- and inter-rater reliability were established using Cohen’s Kappa (see Table 1.4). An
independent researcher examined 55 articles (approximately 10%); five articles were
randomly selected from every 50 articles. For intra-rater reliability, the same 55 articles
were reanalyzed by the original coder to ensure consistency and account for any “drift”
over time. The Kappa range for inter-rater reliability was 0.72 – 1.0 and for intra-rater
reliability it was 0.82 – 1.0.
For the main analysis, descriptive statistics were used to identify the general
patterns in the articles, authors, and journals. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to
determine significant differences among the variables of interest across time. For
variables that had low expected values (n ≤ 5), simulation of the sampling distribution
using Monte Carlo methods was applied. Significant results (p ≤ 0.05) were followed up
with univariate chi-square analyses.
Finally, as this study is exploring potential factors related to IDR, step-wise linear
regression was used to find an initial prediction model for IDR using the other study
variables of interest (i.e., authors, sex, kinesiology affiliation, region, methodology,
disciplinary focus, behavioural epidemiology framework, theoretical framework, and
46
funding source). Since this is exploratory in nature, machine learning techniques were
used to help increase model accuracy. Following the methods described in Hastie,
Tibshirani, and Friedman (2009), training error, test error, and K-fold cross-validation
was calculated for the prediction model. The data was randomly split into a training
dataset (70% of data) and test dataset (30% of data). The model was selected using the
training dataset and subsequently tested using the test dataset. The K-fold cross-validation
used the selected model on the entire dataset. All analyses were conducted using R 2.14
(R Research Team, 2011).
Results
Study characteristics. Study characteristics of the authors are presented in Table
1.5. Almost all of the reviewed articles had more than one author (97.6%), with five
authors being the most common (19.0%). The authors were primarily from Europe
(35.7%) or North America (27.7%), but every inhabitable continent was represented. The
corresponding author was most likely to be male (63.6%) and from the field of
kinesiology (57.4%).
Study characteristics of the articles are presented in Table 1.6. The majority of
articles were classified as biophysical (67.2%) and in phase 3 (i.e., identify factors that
influence physical activity; 62.2%) of the BEF. Table 1.7 shows that European Journal of
Sport Science, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, and
Journal of Physical Activity and Health were the only journals to include all five phases
of the BEF. In terms of methodology, almost all of the articles employed quantitative
methods (94.5%), with quasi-experimental (33.2%) and cross-sectional (25.7%) being the
47
most frequently used study designs. Interestingly, Table 1.8 shows that the International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity was the only journal to include all
research methodologies. In addition, most articles did not explicitly state a theoretical
framework (64.7%). Just over half of the articles identified one or more funding sources
(52.7%).
As seen in Table 1.9, IDR was not common in the reviewed journals, with the
majority being informed disciplinary (78.8%). The International Journal of Sports
Medicine was the least interdisciplinary (94%) and the International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity was the most interdisciplinary (54.2%,
including 6.3% as Transdisciplinary). No study was seen as having achieved conceptual
disciplinary. Women were the corresponding author on almost half (48.7%) of the IDR
studies; furthermore, 28.3% of research with a woman corresponding author was IDR
compared to 17.1% with men as the corresponding author, which was significantly
different (χ2
= 7.7991, df = 1, p = 0.01, OR = 1.54).
Author characteristics across time. Variations in the author characteristics
from 2008 to 2012 are presented in Table 1.10. Neither the corresponding author’s sex
nor discipline significantly varied over time. Similarly, the discipline and region of all
authors did not significantly differ over time.
Article characteristics across time. As seen in Table 1.6, the methodology did
not significantly differ between the reviewed years. There was a marginal, but significant
increase in funding (p = 0.03). Univariate analysis, however, showed it was limited to
48
2008 to 2009 in articles that reported funding (p = 0.003). The BEF approached
significance (p = 0.06). Finally, there were no significant differences in IDR across time.
Step-wise linear regression. The model selected by the step-wise regression
(AIC = -843.88) had only three predictor variables: behavior epidemiology framework,
theoretical framework, and disciplinary focus. A four factor model, however, which
included the three variables above plus sex, was a potential fit (AIC = -842.01). The
training error for the selected model, or its misclassification rate on the training dataset,
was 12.8%. The test error was 15.9%, but the K-fold cross-validation error rate was
10.8%.
The results from the regression model are seen in Table 1.11; overall the model
explained over half the variance, adjusted R2
= 0.52, F (12, 373) = 33.93, p < 0.001. Each
observed discipline was significantly (p < 0.001) different from the reference group,
behavioral. The only significantly different BEF phase was phase 5 (p < 0.001).
Interestingly, not stating a theory was not significantly different than the reference group,
but having more than one theory was significantly different (p < 0.001).
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to review the status of interdisciplinary
research in a collection of articles from kinesiology journals whose mission statements
were explicitly multi- and/or inter-disciplinary in focus. The study strengths include a
longitudinal assessment, a large sampling frame selected with stratified-random
sampling, and a quantitative analysis of the findings.
49
Approximately three quarters of the articles were not interdisciplinary, a pattern
that did not change over the five-year time-span assessed. In terms of absolute volume,
men served as the corresponding author on journal articles more than did women, a
pattern which others have observed (Cardinal & Lee, 2013; Schuiteman & Knoppers,
1987). However, the IDR publication rate favored women over men. Future research
should more thoroughly explore gender differences overall and with regard to IDR in
particular.
Regardless of gender, authors are publishing primarily disciplinary-focused
research in journals with multi- and interdisciplinary missions. Four of the journals had
no transdisciplinary articles at all. This pattern might insinuate that the journals are not as
concerned about the interconnections of the research, rather about publishing work across
the spectrum of kinesiology sub-disciplines. This brings into question whether the
journals are truly maximizing their editorial missions. Unquestionably, journals are
dependent on the submissions received from the authors, limiting an editor to select from
a finite pool of research. In addition, there is also a chance that IDR gets published in
fragments (i.e., salami or piecemeal publications). Regardless of the reasoning, the
current study’s results support the long-held belief that kinesiology is a fragmented
discipline (Edwards, 1989; Hoffman, 1985; Park, 1998; Rikli, 2006). Unfortunately, this
study did not explore reasons behind the lack of interdisciplinarity. If IDR is one possible
strategy for strengthening kinesiology, it is still largely untested, at least as reflected by
contemporary research published in these 10 journals.
50
It is important that blame not be assigned; there is still a lack of evidence even
showing that IDR can strengthen kinesiology. The lack of IDR, however, should still be a
concern if for no other reason than the paradoxical environment that has been created.
The noticeable absence of IDR is occurring in the midst of a continued, organized effort
to increase IDR within kinesiology and the academy more broadly. This includes
prominent researchers advocating for its expansion and academic journals actively
promoting IDR. Thus, the dialogue surrounding IDR in kinesiology is either operating
under false pretenses or researchers simply do not care, or perhaps a combination of both.
To fully understand this complicated situation, future research should explore the barriers
and incentives to conducting IDR. This could shed light on why researchers shy away
from IDR in the midst of continual discourse suggestive of support.
While it remains unclear the reasons behind conducting IDR, our exploratory
regression model showed that disciplinary focus, BEF, and theoretical framework were
important predictors of IDR. This is not entirely surprising because these factors help
determine one’s research design.
For disciplinary focus, all foci were significantly different than the reference
category, behavioral. Interestingly, biophysical was the only area that was less likely to
lead to IDR. Since the biophysical consists of sub-disciplines like biomechanics and
physiology, it is easy to suggest that the physical sciences may be more disciplinaryfocused,
and less likely to conduct research spanning into different areas in kinesiology.
Yet, the biophysical researchers may not be isolationists, deliberately separating
themselves from other areas because the results also indicate that researchers in other
51
fields avoid partnering with the biophysical realm. In fact, there was no article that
combined all three research foci. Instead of placing blame on one area or another, all
kinesiology researchers who are charged with the task of studying human movement
should evaluate their own biases toward the breadth of knowledge domains within the
discipline. Since we share a common passion, just expressed in different ways, we all
have something to learn from other sub-disciplinary areas. Future research should
examine IDR partnerships, exploring the incentives and barriers to working with different
disciplinary groups.
For the BEF, the results indicated that phase 5, when compared to the reference
group, was significantly different than all the other phases in determining IDR. Phase 5
emphasizes translation of research into practice, which by its nature expands research
outside of disciplinary boundaries. Although it was surprising not to see the other phases
differing from each other, this could be because researchers emphasized control and
manipulation of important, but disciplinary-focused, variables. Not surprisingly, the most
popular BEF phases were one and three, aligning with previous research (Rhodes &
Nasuti, 2011; Sallis et al., 2000). The popularity of phase one and three might be because
they easily lend themselves to cross-sectional research designs, which are more costeffective
and produce faster results. Regardless, it was discouraging to see a lack of
research in phase 5. Only three journals had phase 5 research, thus either kinesiologyfocused
translational research is not being done or it is being published in other areas
(e.g., public health). Future research should examine these trends and how IDR can be
incorporated into all phases of the BEF.
52
Having a theoretical framework was not an important predictor of IDR, but
having more than one theory was significantly different. Again, this is logical because the
more theories that are incorporated into a research project, the higher the likelihood of
involving more disciplines. It was surprising that not having a theory was not
significantly different, especially given that over half the studies did not have a stated
theory. However, theory may not be equally important across the sub-disciplines, thus it
is difficult to weigh theory’s importance in IDR. Future research should further explore
the importance of theory in each sub-discipline and in building successful IDR projects.
Perhaps more interesting are the variables not included in the model. Since both
funding and kinesiology affiliation were fairly equal in their dichotomous distribution, it
does suggest that IDR does not depend on financing an expensive study. This bodes well
in an increasingly competitive funding environment. In addition, while each region of the
world was represented, the majority of studies came from Europe and North America.
Yet, region proved to be insignificant in terms of predicting IDR. This suggests that IDR
is not limited to any one region; however, this may also mean that no one region finds it
particularly important. Methodology also proved insignificant, although methodology is
related to BEF. As previously discussed, quantitative research, especially cross-sectional
analysis, was well represented. Qualitative research was not well represented, and mixed
methods were virtually absent. Whether for ease, familiarity, or cost this result suggests a
quantitative prejudice. In addition, gender was not significant either. The number of IDR
articles significantly differed between men and women, the association may have been
confounded by other variables. Finally, the number of authors failed to make the initial
53
model. Similar to funding, this result implies that one does not need a large team to
conduct IDR.
The study has several limitations that restrict the generalizability of the results.
The sample only selected original research articles from ten journals from 2008 to 2012;
thus, the results may not be representative of all kinesiology-related journals and are
limited to the five-year range. Scholars may have chosen to publish their IDR in journals
outside of kinesiology or in journals with more singularly disciplinary focused missions;
these additional avenues of publication may include IDR. In addition, the study used
step-wise regression for exploratory purposes and the results should be interpreted as
such. Future research should continue to build upon these results. Despite these
limitations, the study captured IDR trends in kinesiology in a manner never done before.
Furthermore, the study presented an exploratory model predicting IDR in kinesiology,
helping guide future research endeavors.
What Does this Study Add?
Interdisciplinary research has become popular around academia, promising
greater continuity among disciplines, allowing for diverse teams to find solutions to
complex problems. Kinesiology has not been immune, over the last four decades
prominent leaders, organizations, and journals have promoted IDR as one possible
solution to the field’s fragmentation. Despite the support and kinesiology’s inherent
multidisciplinary (or “cluster”) nature, the field has made little progress in the area of
IDR. The majority of research is still focused on a disciplinary agenda, but it is still
uncertain as to why this occurring. Perhaps more unnerving is the fact we do not know if
54
IDR is even beneficial to kinesiology. Unfortunately, we are left with more questions and
growing uncertainty. Future research should build upon the results, striving to understand
the role of IDR in kinesiology. The journey ahead may be unclear, but with the potential
to help strengthen kinesiology, it is worth every messy step.
55
Bibliography
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., . . .
Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a
critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329-346. doi:
10.111/j.1475 6773.2006.00621.x
Basken, P. (2012a, December 17). Interdisciplinary possibilities pull Caltech biologist to
U. of Southern California. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary/136323/
Basken, P. (2012b). National Science Foundation steps up its push for interdisciplinary
research. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/National-Science-
Foundation/130757/
Bories, T., & Swanson, L. (2005). The department of kinesiology: Practical suggestions
for enhancing interdisciplinary community. Chronicle of Kinesiology and
Physical Education in Higher Education, 16(3), 18-23.
Bressan, E. S. (1979). 2001: The profession is dead - Was it murder or suicide. Quest, 31,
77-82. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1979.10519925
Cardinal, B. J., & Lee, H. (2013). Leading contributors to the Research Consortium's
annual program, 1992-2011: High-visibilty institutions, researchers, and topics.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 74-87. doi:
10.1080/1091367x.2013.741371
Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary
research. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
Edwards, W. H. (1989). Identifying the leaders in North American physical education:
Contemporary and all time notables. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 60(5), 77-79. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1989.10604457
Gill, D. L. (2007). Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education.
Quest, 59(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552
Henry, F. M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, & Recreation, 35(7), 32-35, 69. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Henry, F. M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 1, 13-29. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Hoffman, S. J. (1985). Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 56(6), 19-22. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1985.10603786
56
Jacobs, J. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary hype. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary-Hype/49191/
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Kretchmar, R. S. (2005). Jigsaw puzzles and river banks: Two ways of picturing our
future. Quest, 57(1), 171-177. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2005.10491851
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and
teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sample: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.
McCloy, C. H. (1930). Professional progress through research. Research Quarterly, 1,
63-73.
Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59(1), 5-24.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483532
Park, R. J. (1998). A house divided. Quest, 50(2), 213-224. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Reeve, T. G. (2007). Kinesiology: Defining the academic core of our discipline. Quest,
59(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483531
Rhodes, R. E., & Nasuti, G. (2011). Trends and changes in research on the psychology of
physical activity across 20 years: A quantitative analysis of 10 journals.
Preventive Medicine, 53, 17-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.002
Rikli, R. E. (2006). Kinesiology - a "homeless" field: Addressing organization and
leadership needs. Quest, 58(3), 288-309. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491884
Ruse, M. (2010). Interdisciplinary studies. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/interdisciplinary-studies/29821
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fotheringham, M. J. (2000). Behavioral epidemiology: A
systematic framework to classify phases of research on health promotion and
disease prevention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22(4), 294-298. doi:
10.1007/bf02895665
Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Campbell, E. M., Htun, A. T., Bailey, L. J., & Millar, C. J. (2008).
We are what we do: Research outputs of public health. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 35(4), 380-385. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.039
Schuiteman, J., & Knoppers, A. (1987). An examination of gender differences in
scholarly productivity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 58, 265-272.
doi: 10.1080/02701367.1987.10605460
57
Severin, L. (2013). Essay on how colleges can engage in 'cluster hiring'. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2013/09/30/essay-how-colleges-can-
engage-cluster-hiring
Trevor, H., Robert, T., & Friedman, J. J. H. (2009). The elements of statistical learning (2
ed.). New York: Springer.
Woolf, V. (1952). Three Guineas (4th ed.). London: The Hogarth Press Ltd.
58
Table 1.1. Selected journal characteristics.
Journal Established
Number of Issues
Per year
2012 Impact
Factor
European Journal of Sport
Science
2001 6 1.146
International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity
2004 12 3.577
International Journal of Sports
Medicine
1979 12 2.268
Journal of Physical Activity and
Health
2004 8 N/A
Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport
1998 6 2.899
Journal of Sports Sciences 1983 16 2.082
Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise
1969 12 4.475
Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport
1930 4 1.108
Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports
1991 6 3.214
The Physical Educator 1940 4 N/A
Note: All journals must had an interdisciplinary mission statement and were indexed in at
least one major academic database.
59
Table 1.2. Sample size for each journal by year.
Journal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
European Journal of Sport
Science
4 3 5 5 6 23
International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity
6 8 8 12 14 48
International Journal of
Sports Medicine
16 14 14 15 16 75
Journal of Physical Activity
and Health
6 9 10 12 13 50
Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sports
8 11 11 7 9 46
Journal of Sport Sciences 15 16 17 18 19 85
Medicine and Science in
Sport and Exercise
25 25 27 28 29 134
Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport
6 9 6 9 7 37
Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in
Sports
8 9 8 8 11 44
The Physical Educator 2 2 2 2 2 10
Total 96 105 107 119 125 552
Note: All articles were randomly selected within a given volume year. Cell values are raw
numbers of articles selected within journal by year.
60
Table 1.3. Population and sample size characteristics.
Year
Population Size
(N = 5521)
Sample Size
(n = 552)
Confidence Level % Confidence Interval %
2008 964 96 95 9.5
2009 1053 105 95 9.1
2010 1070 107 95 9.0
2011 1186 119 95 8.5
2012 1248 125 95 8.3
61
Table 1.4. Intra- and inter-rater reliability (Kappa) for study characteristics (n = 55)
Intra-rater reliability Inter-rater reliability
Discipline 0.97 0.85
Behavioral Epidemiology
Framework
0.91 0.72
Methodology and
Design
0.89 0.82
Theoretical Framework 0.82 0.93
Funding
Source
1.00 1.00
Research Type 0.85 0.79
62
Table 1.5. Study characteristics of the authors from articles sampled from 2008-2012.
Total, n (%)
Number of Authors
1 13 (2.4)
2 55 (10.0)
3 104 (18.8)
4 99 (17.9)
5 105 (19.0)
6 89 (16.1)
≤ 7 87 (15.8)
Region
North America 153 (27.7)
Australia/New Zealand 65 (11.8)
Europe 197 (35.7)
Mediterranean/Middle East 5 (0.9)
Asia 28 (5.1)
Africa 3 (0.5)
South America 21 (3.8)
Multi 80 (15.5)
Corresponding Author
Sex
Male 351 (63.6)
Female 201 (36.4)
Field
Kinesiology 317 (57.4)
Other 235 (42.6)
63
Table 1.6. Study characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008-2012.
Total, n (%)
Discipline
Behavioral 108 (19.6)
Biophysical 371 (67.2)
Sociocultural 26 (4.7)
Behavioral/Biophysical 21 (3.8)
Behavioral/Sociocultural 24 (4.3)
Biophysical/Sociocultural 0 (0.0)
Behavioral/Biophysical/Sociocultural 2 (0.4)
Behavioral Epidemiology Framework
Phase 1 78 (14.1)
Phase 2 51 (9.2)
Phase 3 349 (63.2)
Phase 4 62 (11.2)
Phase 5 6 (1.1)
Other 6 (1.1)
Methodology and Design
Quantitative
Measurement 51 (9.2)
Cross-sectional 142 (25.7)
Longitudinal 73 (13.2)
Quasi-experimental 183 (33.2)
Experimental 72 (13.0)
Qualitative
Content analysis 11 (2.0)
Interview 12 (2.2)
Focus groups 5 (0.9)
Mixed-Methods 3 (0.5)
64
Table 1.6 cont. Study characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008-2012
Total, n (%)
Theoretical Framework
Theory 177 (32.1)
Multi-theory 18 (3.3)
No theory explicitly stated 357 (64.7)
Funding Source
Funded 291 (52.7)
No funding source stated 261 (47.3)
Research Type
Informed Disciplinary 435 (78.8)
Synthetic Disciplinary 107 (19.4)
Transdisciplinary 10 (1.8)
Conceptual Disciplinary 0 (0.0)
65
Table 1.7. Number of articles in each Behavioral Epidemiological Framework phase by journal.
Total, n (%)
Journal Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Other Total
European Journal of Sport Science 1 (4.3) 1 (4.3) 18 (78.3) 2 (8.7) 1 (4.3) 0 (0) 23 (100)
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity
3 (6.3) 5 (10.4) 21 (43.8) 13 (27.1) 1 (2.1) 5 (10.4) 48 (100)
International Journal of Sports Medicine 10 (13.3) 4 (5.3) 54 (72) 7 (9.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 75 (100)
Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7 (14) 10 (20) 22 (44) 7 (14) 4 (8) 0 (0) 50 (100)
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 4 (8.7) 7 (15.2) 34 (73.9) 1 (2.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 46 (100)
Journal of Sports Sciences 4 (4.7) 8 (9.4) 62 (72.9) 11 (12.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 85 (100)
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37 (27.6) 6 (4.5) 77 (57.5) 14 (10.4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 134 (100)
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 3 (8.1) 7 (18.9) 23 (62.2) 4 (10.8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 37 (100)
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports
9 (20.5) 1 (2.3) 30 (68.2) 3 (6.8) 0 (0) 1 (2.3) 44 (100)
The Physical Educator 0 (0) 2 (20) 8 (80) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (100)
Total 78 (14.1) 51 (9.2) 349 (63.2) 62 (11.2) 6 (1.1) 6 (1.1) 552 (100)
66
Table 1.8. Number of articles in each research methodology and design type by journal.
Total, n (%)
Journal Measurement
Cross-
sectional
Longitudinal
Quasi-
experimental
Experimental
Content
analysis
Interview
Focus
groups
Mixed-
Methods
Total
European Journal of
Sport Science
1 (4.3) 4 (17.4) 2 (8.7) 12 (52.2) 1 (4.3) 2 (8.7) 1 (4.3) 0 (0) 0 (0)
23
(100)
International Journal
of Behavioral
Nutrition and
Physical Activity
8 (16.7)
16
(33.3)
5 (10.4) 3 (6.3) 11 (22.9) 1 (2.1) 1 (2.1) 2 (4.2) 1 (2.1)
48
(100)
International Journal
of Sports Medicine
4 (5.3)
20
(26.7)
10 (13.3) 28 (37.3) 11 (14.7) 2 (2.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
75
(100)
Journal of Physical
Activity and Health
10 (20) 16 (32) 10 (20) 3 (6) 7 (14) 1 (2) 0 (0) 2 (4) 1 (2)
50
(100)
Journal of Science
and Medicine in
Sport
6 (13)
18
(39.1)
7 (15.2) 11 (23.9) 4 (8.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
46
(100)
Journal of Sports
Sciences
8 (9.4)
19
(22.4)
8 (9.4) 39 (45.9) 6 (7.1) 3 (3.5) 2 (2.4) 0 (0) 0 (0)
85
(100)
Medicine and
Science in Sports and
Exercise
5 (3.7)
25
(18.7)
20 (14.9) 63 (47) 21 (15.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
134
(100)
67
Table 1.8 cont. Number of articles in each research methodology and design type by journal.
Total, n (%)
Journal Measurement
Cross-
sectional
Longitudinal
Quasi-
experimental
Experimental
Content
analysis
Interview
Focus
groups
Mixed-
Methods
Total
Research Quarterly
for Exercise and
Sport
7 (18.9) 9 (24.3) 3 (8.1) 11 (29.7) 1 (2.7) 1 (2.7) 4 (10.8) 1 (2.7) 0 (0)
37
(100)
Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine
& Science in Sports
1 (2.3) 11 (25) 8 (18.2) 11 (25) 10 (22.7) 1 (2.3) 1 (2.3) 0 (0) 1 (2.3)
44
(100)
The Physical
Educator
1 (10) 4 (40) 0 (0) 2 (20) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (30) 0 (0) 0 (0)
10
(100)
Total 51 (9.2)
142
(25.7)
73 (13.2) 183 (33.2) 72 (13) 11 (2) 12 (2.2) 5 (0.9) 3 (0.5)
552
(100)
68
Table 1.9. Number of articles in each interdisciplinary research typology by journal.
Total, n (%)
Journal Informed Disciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary Conceptual Disciplinary Total
European Journal of
Sport Science
19 (82.6) 4 (17.4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 23 (100)
International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity
22 (45.8) 23 (47.9) 3 (6.3) 0 (0) 48 (100)
International Journal of
Sports Medicine
71 (94.7) 3 (4) 1 (1.3) 0 (0) 75 (100)
Journal of Physical
Activity and Health
28 (56) 21 (42) 1 (2) 0 (0) 50 (100)
Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport
36 (78.3) 9 (19.6) 1 (2.2) 0 (0) 46 (100)
Journal of Sports Sciences 76 (89.4) 9 (10.6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 85 (100)
Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise
115 (85.8) 17 (12.7) 2 (1.5) 0 (0) 134 (100)
Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport
25 (67.6) 10 (27) 2 (5.4) 0 (0) 37 (100)
Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in
Sports
38 (86.4) 6 (13.6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 44 (100)
The Physical Educator 5 (50) 5 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (100)
Total 435 (78.8) 107 (19.4) 10 (1.8) 0 (0) 552 (100)
69
Table 1.10. Study volume by content and methodological characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008 to 2012.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 p-value
Corresponding Author p = 0.61
Men 55 67 73 75 80
Women 41 39 34 41 46
Discipline p = 0.36
Behavioral 18 25 22 17 26
Biophysical 63 72 74 82 80
Sociocultural 9 3 6 4 4
Behavioral/Biophysical 1 5 2 5 8
Behavioral/Sociocultural 5 1 4 7 7
Biophysical/Sociocultural 0 0 0 0 0
Behavioral/Biophysical/Sociocultural 0 0 0 1 1
Region p = 0.87
North America 28 31 25 33 36
Australia/New Zealand 15 14 12 13 11
Europe 36 33 42 43 43
Mediterranean/Middle East 0 1 1 1 2
Asia 5 6 6 7 4
Africa 1 0 1 0 1
South America 1 3 3 4 10
Multi 10 18 18 15 19
70
Table 1.10 cont. Study volume by content and methodological characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008 to 2012.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 p-value
Methodology and Design p = 0.39
Quantitative
Measurement 8 10 11 12 9
Cross-sectional 27 28 25 35 28
Longitudinal 12 13 12 14 21
Quasi-experimental 34 33 27 40 44
Experimental 10 18 23 7 21
Qualitative
Content analysis 2 2 4 2 0
Interview 2 1 4 5 0
Focus groups 1 1 1 0 2
Mixed-Methods 0 0 1 1 1
Behavioral Epidemiology Framework p = 0.06
Phase 1 14 12 18 21 20
Phase 2 8 12 11 7 12
Phase 3 65 65 62 78 75
Phase 4 8 17 12 6 18
Phase 5 0 0 4 1 0
Other 1 0 1 3 1
Theoretical Framework p = 0.15
Theory 36 37 37 39 28
Multi-theory 4 5 2 5 2
No theory explicitly stated 56 64 69 72 96
71
Table 1.10 cont. Study volume by content and methodological characteristics of the articles sampled from 2008 to 2012.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 p-value
Funding Source p = 0.03
Funded 43 54 46 65 83
No funding source stated 53 52 62 51 43
Research Type p = 0.72
Informed Disciplinary 72 81 81 98 99
Synthetic Disciplinary 22 23 26 16 24
Transdisciplinary 2 2 1 2 3
Conceptual Disciplinary - - - - -
72
Table 1.11. Step-wise regression analysis predicting interdisciplinary research.
Variable β 95% CI
Discipline
Behavioral reference
Biophysical* -0.19 (-0.29, -0.10)
Sociocultural* 0.26 (0.06, 0.39)
Behavioral/Biophysical* 0.83 (0.65, 1.01)
Behavioral/Sociocultural* 0.74 (0.56, 0.92)
Behavioral/Biophysical/Sociocultural* 0.71 (0.24, 1.18)
Behavioral Epidemiology Framework
Phase 1 reference
Phase 2 -0.12 (-0.26, 0.17)
Phase 3 -0.04 (-0.14, 0.05)
Phase 4 0.04 (-0.10, 0.17)
Phase 5* 0.70 (0.39, 1.02)
Other 0.01 (-0.31, 0.33)
Theoretical Framework
Theory reference
Multi-theory* 0.45 (0.24, 0.65)
No theory explicitly stated -0.05 (-0.12, 0.02)
Note: Adjusted R2
= 0.52 (p < 0.001)
*statistically significant (p < 0.001)
73
Chapter 4. Manuscript 2
74
Uncovering the Mystery of Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology
Abstract
Purpose: Kinesiology’s multidisciplinary nature would seem an ideal configuration for
conducting interdisciplinary research (IDR). Unfortunately, increased specialization has
caused fragmentation among kinesiology’s sub-disciplines. IDR has been proposed as a
potential solution to overcome the disintegration that has been described, yet much
remains unknown about the role of IDR in kinesiology. Method: This qualitative study
explored kinesiologists’ perception of IDR, including perceived benefits and limitations.
The sample was comprised of kinesiologists (n = 45) from higher education, the majority
from North America and Europe (76.2%). Only a minority of the participants selfidentified
as disciplinary researchers (n = 23.2%). Each participant answered a primarily
open-ended, seven question internet survey. Themes were uncovered using an opencoding
protocol. Results: The overarching themes were Benefits (i.e., the positive
aspects to conducting IDR) and Limitations (i.e., the challenges to conducting IDR), each
with eight sub-themes. The most prominent sub-themes for Benefits were New
Perspectives, Better Results, and Collaboration Potential. The most prominent subthemes
for Limitations were Collaboration Problems, Challenging Methodology, and
Limiting Results and Analysis. Overall, all participants felt IDR was valuable to the field,
but each had legitimate reservations, creating a somewhat contradictory environment that
causes tension between the perceived benefits and limitations. Conclusion: Until the
tension can be resolved, IDR may continue to remain on the fringes of kinesiology
research.
75
Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is becoming an important and much discussed
topic in higher education circles and throughout the research enterprise more broadly
(Basken, 2012b; Jacobs, 2009; Ruse, 2010). IDR is more than just scholastic rhetoric, it is
being adopted and operationalized by funding agencies. For example, the National
Science Foundation (Basken, 2012a) and the National Institutes of Health (Freedson,
2009; Giacobbi, Buman, Romney, Klatt, & Stoddard, 2012) strongly encourage IDR in
grant proposals.
Despite its growing importance, the application of IDR often remains
cryptic to academics and administrators; the term is ambiguous and
misunderstood. The confusion may stem from the numerous and often competing
definitions that abound (Klein, 1990). Amidst the ambiguity, however, several
scholars have suggested operationalized, “working definitions” of IDR by
combining characteristics of several theoretical definitions (Aboelela et al., 2007;
Committee on Science, 2005; Lattuca, 2001). Although even the “working
definitions” vary, there are common characteristics, such as: (1) a project that
groups together two or more distinct scientific disciplines; (2) integrating
knowledge that is not limited to any one field; (3) and using the perspective and
skills of all involved disciplines throughout the entire research process. In
addition, IDR can be conceptualized as a continuum with different levels
spanning from disciplinary to transdisciplinary (Lattuca, 2001).
Perhaps a more imminent concern for faculty members are the barriers deterring
them from pursuing interdisciplinary projects. Carayol and Thi (2005) stated that
76
traditional academic career incentives do not encourage IDR. For example, there is a
tension between professional advancement (e.g., tenure, promotion, establishing oneself
as an authority in field) and IDR, which may discourage un-established junior faculty and
graduate students from conducting IDR projects (Rhoten & Parker, 2004). Likewise, IDR
projects often take longer to complete than do traditional disciplinary-based research
projects (Campbell, 2006; Rhoten & Parker, 2004), which can complicate logistics, strain
funding, and make such work unattractive to those facing the ever-present and clicking
tenure-clock.
Despite its potential barriers, there may be advantages to IDR too. Klein (1990)
argued that IDR can produce results that are not possible in a disciplinary framework.
Echoing her sentiment, Rhoten and Parker (2004) showed that young academics thought
IDR could help science address large societal issues (e.g., obesity, poverty, quality
education) more effectively than could disciplinary approaches alone. The idea that IDR
may help to solve large and complex problems is reflected in academia’s growing support
of IDR, as previously discussed. In fact, many universities have started IDR centers
through “cluster hiring”, or the simultaneous hiring of multiple faculty members from
different disciplines or disciplinary areas, with a goal of collaboratively exploring
complex problems (Severin, 2013).
On the surface, kinesiology has the appearance of or the potential for a natural
IDR “cluster” because of the multidisciplinary nature of the discipline (Bories &
Swanson, 2005). Since Henry’s (1964) urgent call for kinesiology (then physical
education) to become more “academic”, the field has evolved into numerous sub-
77
disciplinary areas representing the physical sciences (e.g., biomechanics, physiology),
social sciences (psychology, sociology), and humanities (e.g., history, philosophy). With
so many different academic areas studying physical activity, IDR appears to be a natural
fit for kinesiology.
Unfortunately, and in spite of warnings from Henry (1964, 1978) and others
(Bressan, 1979; Siedentop, 1972), it became clear in the ensuing decades that with
specialization came fragmentation and disunity (Corbin, 1993; Hoffman, 1985; Newell,
1990; Park, 1998; Thomas, 1987). That is, many kinesiologists today seem to work in
relative subdisciplinary isolation, perhaps even affiliating most closely with the parent
discipline from which their subdisciplinary area arises (e.g., pedagogy, physiology,
psychology) rather than working with others across and within the subdisciplinary
domains that comprise kinesiology (Gill, 2007; Newell 2007). In an interesting twist of
fate, then, instead of being exclusively a means of advancing science and solving the
complex problems associated with the work of the field, IDR is increasingly being seen
as a possible strategy for unifying and strengthening kinesiology’s multidisciplinary
structure (Gill, 2007; Kretchmar, 2013; Newell, 2007).
Yet, there are concerns surrounding IDR in kinesiology. The actual benefits of
IDR in kinesiology are still unknown, perhaps due to the dearth of research surrounding
IDR in kinesiology. Before IDR’s potential to unify kinesiology can be determined, one
must understand kinesiologists’ perceptions of IDR, including its perceived importance,
barriers, and incentives. Therefore, the purpose of this descriptive study was to explore
78
kinesiologists’ perceived barrier and incentives to conducting IDR with no a priori
hypotheses.
Methods
Sample. The sampling frame (N = 315) was restricted to corresponding authors of
research articles randomly selected from 10 kinesiology-focused, peer-reviewed journals
published from 2008-2012 (see Appendix A). To be included in the sampling frame, the
corresponding authors had to be at least 18 years old; able to read and write in English;
published at least one article in a kinesiology-focused, peer-reviewed journal; and be in a
kinesiology-related academic department or organization.
Every author included in the sampling frame was invited via email to take an
online survey. The selected participants received up to three emails over two weeks. In
total, 315 initial emails were sent, 30 emails were returned as undeliverable, 240 opted
out of participation, 45 provided at least one useable answer, and 34 answered all of the
questions. The final response rate was 14.29% for at least one useable answer and
10.79% for all questions answered. All information used for selecting and contacting the
sample were publically available in the journal or on the internet.
Survey. Participants were given a seven-question internet survey, employing five
open-ended, qualitative questions, one quantitative question, and one quantitative and
qualitative question (See Appendix D). The survey was developed using both Berg and
Lune’s (2012) recommendations for creating qualitative research questions and Dillman,
Smyth, and Christian's (2009) recommendations for internet surveys. The questions asked
the authors about their research experience and opinion of interdisciplinary research in
79
kinesiology. Following the seven questions, participants were asked demographic
information (i.e., highest degree earned, field of highest degree, year highest was
awarded, academic rank, length of time at current institution, interdisciplinary training,
and gender).
The survey was designed and distributed using the Qualtrics Research Suite
(http://www.qualtrics.com). Since participation was completed entirely online, the
directions and inclusion criteria was given before the survey. By completing the survey,
each participant agreed to the stated terms. The institutional review board of the authors’
university approved the study.
Data Analysis. Following the data collection, themes were uncovered from each
open-ended question using an open-coding protocol. The protocol followed Glaser and
Strauss’ (1967) guidelines: (1) ask the data a specific and consistent set of questions, (2)
analyze the data minutely, (3) frequently interrupt the coding to write a theoretical note,
and (4) never assume the analytic relevance of any traditional variable. The lead author
then thematically coded the data. To help minimize bias, a second independent researcher
reviewed the coding and suggested revisions. A consensual agreement between the
researchers produced the final thematic coding.
Following the analyses, all 45 participants were asked to member-check the initial
results. Seventeen participants (37.77% response rate) reviewed the results with the
understanding that they may include more information than any one individual submitted.
There were no reported discrepancies or concerns regarding the results. Of the study
80
participants who member-checked the data, a representative comment was, “the results
reflect clearly the ideas wrote in the survey.”
Results
Sample Demographics. The sample demographics are shown in Table 2.1.
Although every participant did not answer every question, there was enough information
to get an adequate description of the sample. Men composed approximately two-thirds of
the sample. All participants held a doctoral degree and came from an academic
environment. Because the titles associated with academic rank vary by country of
employment, the academic titles shown should be interpreted with caution. The majority
of participants were from North America and Europe (76.2%). Only a minority of
participants self-identified themselves as being a disciplinary-focused researcher (23.2%).
Finally, all of the responding participants (n = 42) felt that IDR is important to the field
of kinesiology.
Themes. As seen in Table 2.2, eight sub-themes emerged from the participants’
responses and these were organized under the larger thematic areas of benefits and
limitations. Benefits refer to the perceived positive aspects of IDR, whereas Limitations
refers to the difficulties surrounding IDR. Although every participant thought IDR was
both beneficial and limiting, the responses were slightly skewed towards beneficial.
Furthermore, several participants justified a negative statement by stating the limitation
was not “major” or “I really don’t see any [problems]. Unless…” Similar rationalizations
were not attached to the beneficial comments.
81
Benefits
New perspectives. Thirty-two participants indicated that incorporating different
ideas, theories, and frameworks, allows a research team to, “study a research question
from different angles.” This was seen as beneficial to kinesiology research because, “each
discipline provides only one perspective about human movement and multiple
perspectives are likely to provide a better understanding of what is being observed.” In
addition, as kinesiologists try to understand increasingly complex phenomena, “it is
critical to integrate the knowledge of other fields into kinesiology.” Thus, IDR provides,
“increased insight and knowledge generation.”
Better results. Twenty-seven participants thought that IDR produced better results
than disciplinary research, especially when studying complex phenomena like human
movement. One participant’s comments captured this nicely: “interdisciplinary research
offers both broader and more in-depth outcomes in addressing questions related to human
experience.” In addition, IDR was seen to create, “more insightful answers to research
hypotheses” and thought of as being, “less reductionist”.
Collaboration. Sixteen participants felt that collaborating with other (sub-)
disciplines enhanced their research. Seen as an extension of new perspectives,
collaborations provided, “opportunities to network”, allowing one to, “work with people
who are experts in related fields.” These IDR teams create new ideas, deepening the
overall understanding of human movement. Furthermore, several participants indicated
that partnering with practitioners and clinicians would be beneficial because they have
different viewpoints than academics.
82
Funding potential. The ability to secure funding was reported as a benefit of IDR
by 14 participants. This was exemplified by the following participant’s comment:
“I do feel that interdisciplinary involvement makes it easier to get funding from
different sources than would be possible with just our own discipline. Some
research grants are only available for people who are working with teams of three
or more researchers, for example.”
Another participant noted, “…I find that one of the benefits of IDR is the access to
funding sources that I would not have had [had I been] working solely with kinesiologists
in a university setting.”
Better methodology. Eleven participants mentioned that IDR improves research
design by allowing kinesiologists to use different techniques, measures, and technology.
For example:
Having suggestions from many disciplines before I start a research project can
make my research design a lot stronger, and also prepare me for the kinds of
criticisms that I may receive from people outside my discipline. By taking these
into account from the beginning, I can make sure my research and my reports on
the research are harder to criticize when they are finished.
Increased publication and application. Ten participants felt that IDR was an
effective strategy for publication. Just as IDR helps with funding opportunities, it also
increases, “the number of publication and presentation” opportunities, especially for,
“journals that target a broad audience (JSS, RQES).” In addition, there was a mutual
feeling that there is a, “preference for interdisciplinary research in high standard
83
journals.” Finally, research should have application, as there is a, “need to apply results to
wider interests.” One participant expanded, saying that, “applying the new findings
usually needs interdisciplinary-focused research.”
Movement is multidimensional. Five participants agreed that human movement
is, “a function of many inter-related elements including physiological, social, cultural,
psychological and other processes.” Such a complex phenomenon is best understood
through IDR because it, “opens avenues to adopt technologies, strategies and knowledge
from various fields to sustain positive behavior change.”
Benefits the field. Five participants also thought IDR was beneficial to the field,
both externally and internally. Within the broader realm of academia, IDR was described
as a way to bring, “positive attention to kinesiology”. One participant’s comment
provided a representative explanation, “I think it [IDR] is a way to promote the type of
research we lead…being able to conduct interdisciplinary research would help the field of
kinesiology build a stronger identity.” In addition, “utilizing an interdisciplinary approach
helps answer questions in ways that unify the field”, strengthening the bonds between
sub-disciplines.
Limitations
Collaboration problems. Rarely is IDR done independently, IDR is usually
conducted by a team of researchers from different disciplines. Fifteen participants
expressed, “such people may not exist within a department or university or these people
may not be interested in collaboration. One would most likely have to seek our comrades
from other universities.” Having to build virtual research teams can pose a problem
84
because it takes time to build healthy, working relationships. In addition, one participant
mentioned that there are “territorialism or turf wars” between supposed collaborators,
with certain kinesiosologists worried that other disciplines will get the credit for their
research. Perhaps more seriously, some participants did not feel respected by potential
collaborators: “The natural science subdisciplines (e.g., physiology, biomechanics)
sometimes view the behavioural science subdisciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology) as
“softer” and therefore less scientific. That assumption can make it difficult for the
behavioural science groups to participate on equal footing.”
Challenging methodology. Thirteen participants mentioned that IDR can have an
adverse effect on methodology, especially when partnering with other disciplines.
Interdisciplinary research, “can make quantifying metrics quite challenging, and there
will likely be dispute (between disciplines) of varying severity in how best to measure or
analyze a given task in the context of a problem of interest.”
Limiting results and analysis. Eleven participants expressed concern that IDR
was too broad, hindering the depth required for adequate insight. For example:
I think a limitation may be due to the breadth of research involved and exposing
the research to potentially a lot more confusing variables in order to address the
research problem. I think it may be difficult to analyze a problem with the proper
amount of detail in order to address this breadth.
In addition, different disciplines may have, “conflicting primary aims” and, “different
research directions” that dilute the results and weaken the analyses.
85
Logistical barriers. According to 11 participants, conducting IDR is logistically
demanding, requiring a greater time investment than disciplinary research. It takes longer
to collect data, analyze results, and set-up research team meetings. These hurdles were
made more difficult because many participants felt that their institution did not support
IDR. One researcher’s comments nicely summarized the general sentiment, “the added
time and complexity of these types of studies is too great relative to the time and
resources available.” Thus, the time extra investment deters researchers who are already
overcommitted. Finally, two participants specifically mentioned the lack of formal IDR
training, turning IDR into a process of trial-and-error.
Increased financial cost. Due to the complex nature of some IDR studies, nine
participants said financial costs were a significant barrier. For example:
Because human development moderates or mediates relationships in all
kinesiology research questions, longitudinal studies accounting for growth and
maturation are required for establishing cause and effect relationships. This is
costly, time consuming and subject to attrition.
In addition, there can be ambiguity regarding the distribution of grant monies among IDR
team members. One participate even posed the questions, “Who gets the indirect funding
from grants? How are those roles managed?”
Disciplinary Jargon. Five participants thought a particular IDR “challenge is to
build a common language and a common object so that it becomes possible and useful to
work with colleagues of other disciplines.” Each discipline has its own vocabulary,
making collaborations challenging. Trying to speak, “the same language is difficult at
86
times between interdisciplinary researchers” because many researchers are reluctant to
learn another discipline’s jargon.
Hinders career advancement. Five participants worried that pursuing IDR would
negatively affect their career advancement (i.e., tenure and promotion). It was seen as
more difficult to get promoted, “from research that doesn’t fit obvious disciplinary
categories.” One participant expressed that, “interdisciplinary research has hurt me in
job-hunting.”
Publishing difficulties. Only three participants considered IDR a publishing
liability, making it more difficult to publish a journal article. A “non-interdisciplinary
journal may be less interested in a paper that is comprised of an interdisciplinary team of
researchers.” Worries extended beyond the scope of the journal, it was expressed as,
“often difficult to publish [IDR] as most reviewers are not interdisciplinary.”
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to explore kinesiologists’ views of IDR.
The results revealed an interesting relationship between the perceived benefits and
limitations of IDR. Prior to exploring that relationship, however, one needs to understand
the subtle bias in the results. The participants unanimously agreed that IDR was
beneficial to kinesiology, a surprising outcome since 23% self-identified as disciplinaryfocused
researchers. The unanimous result may be due to academia’s embrace of IDR
(Basken, 2012b; Jacobs, 2009; Ruse, 2010), with participants feeling obliged to agree
because it is the “right” answer. Regardless of the reason, the results should be
interpreted with an understanding of this positive bias.
87
The results exposed a complex relationship between the participants and IDR. As
previously mentioned, each participant thought IDR had positive and negative attributes,
organized within two dichotomous themes: Benefits and Limitations. Much like the twoheaded
“Pushmi-pullyu” mythical animal from The Story of Doctor Dolittle children’s
book (Lofting, 1920), these two themes simultaneously push and pull researchers in both
directions. For example, while IDR is generally seen as beneficial, participants still had
reservations that dampened their enthusiasm. The sub-themes further illustrate this
tension. Both themes had five similar sub-themes: results, collaboration, funding,
methodology, and publishing. Exploring these five sub-themes will help shed light on this
paradoxical situation. Yet, it should be noted that all the sub-themes are inter-related,
with any one sub-theme being influenced by the others.
It was not surprising that “Results” was a controversial topic because significant
and meaningful results are the lifeblood of research. Over twice as many participants
thought IDR produced better, more robust results. Participants thought that IDR more
fully captured the complexities of human movement because human movement does not
occur in a vacuum rather it is simultaneously influenced by (and is influencing)
physiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Yet, trying to study too
many factors can produce shallow results that lack the depth of knowledge needed to
adequately understand anything. Ultimately, the relationship should not be as binary as it
appears in this study. The participants shared the extreme views that permeate throughout
academia. Instead of viewing results from IDR as either too limited or too broad,
researchers should view IDR on a continuum and try to seek a balance. The Pushmi-
88
Pullyu analogy illustrates this balance. If both heads are actively “feeding” (i.e., acquiring
knowledge), then the animal’s shared torso (i.e., the discipline of kinesiology) will grow
in size and influence as the new knowledge is “metabolized” (i.e., processed for daily
use; used to positively grow the structure of the overall organism). The underlying
assumption being that the knowledge is known and understood within the broader
scientific discipline and professions affected by it, akin to Ziegler’s (2011) long-standing
call for organizational principles for the field.
Finding the proper balance is more of an art form than a science, because it takes
many factors into consideration, such as: type of research, research goals, variable(s) of
interest, and desired degree of sensitivity and specificity. In addition, the results are
dependent on available resources (e.g., equipment, facilities, funding). Thus, due to the
countless number of possible considerations and resources, universal recommendations
are beyond the scope of this study.
Collaboration is almost always necessary when conducting IDR; and similar to
results, collaboration is controversial. Collaborating with people in different disciplines
can widen perspective and deepen understanding on a particular topic because it is
impossible to know everything about a topic. This expansion of knowledge could
mitigate previously held biases and assumptions, helping to improve a study’s quality. In
addition, working with non-academics (e.g., community leaders, industry partners,
practitioners) can help make the research more applicable and/or contextually relevant.
Ironically, the biggest challenge to reaping the benefits of collaboration is
collaboration itself. From the participants’ descriptions, egos and elitism often hinder
89
productive communication. Not respecting all disciplines’/subdisciplines’ ability to add
value to a project undermines IDR and reinforcing biases and assumptions about other
disciplines/subdisciplines.
Even if everyone’s opinions are equally valued, it still takes time to build
collaborations. Stemming from the sub-theme, “Logistical Barriers”, the increased
complexities of IDR require more time and effort, which is supported by the literature
(Campbell, 2006; Rhoten & Parker, 2004). As discussed in greater detail below, young
faculty members, under the pressure for production to obtain tenure (i.e., the “publish or
perish” paradigm), do not always have such luxuries. Additionally, finding a common
scientific language amid the jungle of disciplinary jargon can be another hurdle often too
high to overcome. In order to successfully collaborate, researchers, and the universities
that support them, must first believe that the potential benefits outweigh the barriers. But
belief is not enough, researchers, and the universities that support them, must also invest
in resources (e.g., equipment, facilities, funding, time) to overcome the barriers. Belief
without proper investment may result in chaos, confusion, frustration, and/or inaction.
Similar to results and collaboration, more participants felt IDR expanded funding
opportunities. Participants overwhelmingly noted that obtaining grants alleviated many of
the IDR challenges by supplying resources. Grants, however, do not magically solve all
problems. Instead, problems shift to the fair appropriation of the monies. With pressure to
bring in external funding to departments, large sums of money can cause rifts in research
teams because dispersion can be complex and political. In addition, funding may not be
sufficient to a research team’s needs or department expectations, which could also cause
90
tension among research members. Thus, the emphasis on funding might hinder rather
than facilitate IDR. Future research should examine the role of funding on IDR in greater
detail.
Valid and reliable measurements are critical to the success of any research
endeavor. Due to the importance of methodology, it was not surprising to see conflicting
opinions about the role of methodology in IDR. Out of the five sub-themes with
reciprocal relationships, methodology was the only sub-theme that had more negative
than positive comments. The primary challenge was agreeing on the best way to measure
and analyze the variables of interest. Other participants, however, felt that working with
different disciplines strengthened the methodology because researchers in other
disciplines were able to see limitations in any one technique and offer suggestions.
Initially these two viewpoints appear to be opposite, but they are actually related.
Researchers often disagree about the best methodology because they each see the
strengths of their design and the limitations of the others, as described in the negative
connotation. The research teams that can productively collaborate (without egos or elitist
attitudes) can find the best methodology (or combination thereof) based off their
collective expertise, moving to the situation described in the positive connotation. The
inter-related relationship of these sub-themes becomes increasingly important because
finding the best methodology through productive collaboration will produce the best
results.
Publishing is one of the primary currencies academics collect and are evaluated
on for career advancement, especially among young academics seeking tenure and
91
promotion. Participants saw IDR as both an effective strategy to increase publication and
as a barrier towards publication. Although more participants felt it increased
opportunities to publish, the type of publication outlet may be the key to understanding
this contradiction. The content of an academic journal is determined by its editor-in-chief,
editorial board, and reviewers, all of whom are guided by the journal’s mission statement
and/or purpose. The content of academic conferences is often premised in a similar
manner. However, journals and conferences differ in their level of interdisciplinary focus.
In addition, certain sub-disciplines and regions (e.g., Asia, Europe, North America) may
encourage IDR more than others. Thus, the participant’s sub-discipline and location may
determine the publishing opportunities. Future research should examine IDR publishing
in kinesiology.
Not all of the Benefits sub-themes are reciprocal in nature, specifically: “New
Perspectives”, “Movement is Multidimensional”, and “Benefits the Field”. All three of
these sub-themes focus on more universal aspects and/or benefits of IDR in kinesiology,
illustrating that IDR is beneficial for the field in general. Additionally, having no
Limitations sub-theme counter-part emerge supports the positive bias of the responses.
Since there were no negative sub-themes like “Movement is Disciplinary” or “Harms the
Field”, participants felt that at least the idea of IDR is more beneficial than limiting.
Perhaps most enlightening is the comparison of the Benefits sub-theme “Benefits
the Field” with the Limitations sub-theme “Hinders Career Advancement”. As previously
described “Benefits the Field” is more universal and idealistic, whereas “Hinders Career
Advancement” is more individualized and realistic. This enigmatic pairing shows the
92
inconsistent expectations of higher education, reflective, again, of the Pushmi-Pullyu
metaphor described previously, or, perhaps even the dynamic tension one might
experience in a game of tug-of-war. At the same time universities and departments tout
their support of IDR, they are very often rewarding disciplinary research. Until the mixmessaging
stops, researchers will continue to feel the tension between helping the field
versus helping their career.
What Does This Paper Add?
Despite the rhetoric, IDR in kinesiology is a controversial topic. There is an
obvious tension between IDR’s perceived benefits and limitations. While there is a
general consensus that IDR is beneficial, many kinesiologists have legitimate hesitations.
These hesitations stem from an apparent double standard, whereby academics and
administrators praise the potential of IDR, but primarily reward those following a more
disciplinary/sub-disciplinary-oriented research paradigm. Until there is a shift in
academic thinking that elevates IDR to the same level of importance and support as
disciplinary research, researchers will have to continue to overcome unnecessary barriers.
Kinesiologists seem to perceive that IDR holds great promise, but we must work together
to lower the hurdles to make it a reality. IDR must also be evaluated over time to see if
assumptions about unifying the field really follow, or if something else unexpected
occurs (e.g., Kinesiology gets morphed into something altogether different from what it
was in yesteryear and what it is today).
93
References
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., . . .
Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a
critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329-346. doi:
10.111/j.1475 6773.2006.00621.x
Basken, P. (2012a, December 17). Interdisciplinary possibilities pull Caltech biologist to
U. of Southern California. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary/136323/
Basken, P. (2012b). National Science Foundation steps up its push for interdisciplinary
research. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/National-Science-
Foundation/130757/
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Bories, T., & Swanson, L. (2005). The department of kinesiology: Practical suggestions
for enhancing interdisciplinary community. Chronicle of Kinesiology and
Physical Education in Higher Education, 16(3), 18-23.
Bressan, E. S. (1979). 2001: The profession is dead - Was it murder or suicide. Quest, 31,
77-82. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1979.10519925
Campbell, L. M. (2006). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research.
Conservation Biology, 19, 574-577. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00058.x
Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in
interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14, 70-79. doi:
10.3152/147154405781776355
Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary
research. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
Corbin, C. B. (1993). The field of physical education: Common goals, not common roles.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(1), 79-87. doi:
10.1080/07303084.1993.10606681
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Freedson, P. S. (2009). Interdisciplinary research funding: Reaching outside the
boundaries of kinesiology. Quest, 61, 19-24. doi:
10.1080/00336297.2009.10483597
Giacobbi, P. R., Buman, M. P., Romney, K. J., Klatt, M. R., & Stoddard, M. J. (2012).
Scope, impact, and methods of National Institute of Health funded research in
kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 1, 118-128.
94
Gill, D. L. (2007). Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education.
Quest, 59(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Henry, F. M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, & Recreation, 35(7), 32-35, 69. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Henry, F. M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 1, 13-29. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Hoffman, S. J. (1985). Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 56(6), 19-22. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1985.10603786
Jacobs, J. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary hype. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary-Hype/49191/
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Kretchmar, R. S. (2013). Tensions, integrations, messiness, and hope for the future.
Kinesiology Review, 2, 103-106.
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and
teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Lofting, H. (1920). The story of Doctor Dolittle, being the history of his peculiar life at
home and astonishing adventures in foreign parts. New York: Frederick A.
Stokes.
Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest,
42(3), 227-242. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1990.10483997
Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59(1), 5-24.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483532
Park, R. J. (1998). A house divided. Quest, 50(2), 213-224. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path.
Science, 306, 2406. doi: 10.1126/science.1103628
Ruse, M. (2010). Interdisciplinary studies. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/interdisciplinary-studies/29821
95
Severin, L. (2013). Essay on how colleges can engage in 'cluster hiring'. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2013/09/30/essay-how-colleges-can-
engage-cluster-hiring
Siedentop, D. (1972). On tilting at windmills while Rome burns. Quest, 18, 94-97. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1972.10519740
Thomas, J. R. (1987). Are we already in pieces, or just falling apart? Quest, 39, 114-121.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483863
Zeigler, E. F. (2011). A new "principle principle" (#14) of physical activity education is
emerging. The Physical Educator, 68, 115-117.
96
Table 2.1. Demographic information of sample
n (%)
Gender (n = 42)
Men 27 (64.3)
Women 15 (35.7)
Highest Degree (n = 39)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 38 (97.4)
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) 1 (2.6)
Academic Rank (n = 35)
Graduate Student 7 (20.0)
Post Doctoral Fellow 2 (5.7)
Lecturer/Senior Lecturer 7 (20.0)
Assistant Professor 8 (22.9)
Associate Professor 9 (25.7)
Professor 2 (5.7)
Region (n = 42)
North America 19 (45.2)
South America 1 (2.4)
Europe 13 (31.0)
Australia/New Zealand 9 (21.4)
Self-Identified Research Focus (n = 43)
Disciplinary 3 (6.9)
Mostly Disciplinary 7 (16.3)
Neutral 12 (27.9
Mostly Interdisciplinary 14 (32.6)
Interdisciplinary 7 (16.3)
97
Table 2.2. Themes and sub-themes from faculty
perceptions of interdisciplinary research in
kinesiology
Benefits
New Perspectives (n = 32)
Better Results (n = 27)
Collaboration Potential (n = 16)
Funding Potential (n = 14)
Better Methodology (n = 11)
Increased Publications and Application (n = 10)
Movement is Multidimensional (n = 5)
Benefits the Field (n = 5)
Limitations
Collaboration Problems (n = 15)
Challenging Methodology (n = 13)
Limiting Results and Analysis (n = 11)
Logistical Barriers (n = 11)
Increased Financial Cost (n = 9)
Disciplinary Jargon (n = 5)
Hinders Career Advancement (n = 5)
Publishing Difficulties (n = 3)
98
Chapter 5. General Conclusion
99
General Conclusion
While academics continue to talk about the benefits of interdisciplinary research
(IDR), within kinesiology, IDR is still understudied and often misunderstood.
Uncovering the breadth and depth of IDR in kinesiology is beyond the scope of any one
study, but this dissertation took the initial steps towards clarity by completing a
descriptive review of IDR, proposing an initial model of IDR, and describing
kinesiologist’s perceived benefits and limitations. Interestingly and importantly, while
disciplinary research far exceeded IDR in the quantitative study, all surveyed
kinesiologists in the qualitative study still perceived IDR as beneficial to the field and for
solving complex human movement problems (e.g., physical inactivity, sedentary living).
Future research should explore this perplexing result. Prospective projects could include
examining disciplinary-focused journals, researching the role of translational research
within IDR, interviewing kinesiologists with IDR experience, studying IDR training in
graduate programs (including research methods courses and books used in the field), or
determining IDR best practices.
Regardless of the research avenue, in order to maximize IDR’s effectiveness,
there needs to be as much emphasis placed on understanding IDR as there is placed on
implementing IDR. Without continued reflection and examination, conducting IDR may
not yield the results needed to solve internal struggles (e.g., fragmentation) or external
problems (e.g., physical inactivity, sedentary living). Without the unconditional support
from administrators, faculty, and funding agencies, we may never truly know IDRs
potential.
100
Bibliography
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., . . .
Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a
critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329-346. doi:
10.111/j.1475 6773.2006.00621.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewoord Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Basken, P. (2012a, December 17). Interdisciplinary possibilities pull Caltech biologist to
U. of Southern California. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary/136323/
Basken, P. (2012b, February 13). National Science Foundation steps up its push for
interdisciplinary research. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/National-
Science-Foundation/130757/
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Boone, T. (2009). Exercise science is not a sound college investment. Professionalization
of Exercise Physiology-online, 12(3), 1-10.
Bories, T., & Swanson, L. (2005). The department of kinesiology: Practical suggestions
for enhancing interdisciplinary community. Chronicle of Kinesiology and
Physical Education in Higher Education, 16(3), 18-23.
Bressan, E. S. (1979). 2001: The profession is dead - Was it murder or suicide. Quest, 31,
77-82. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1979.10519925
Campbell, L. M. (2006). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research.
Conservation Biology, 19, 574-577. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00058.x
Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2005). Why do academic scientists engage in
interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation, 14, 70-79. doi:
10.3152/147154405781776355
Cardinal, B. J. (1995). Readability analysis of health, phyiscal education, recreation and
dance journal articles. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 255-258. doi:
10.2466/pms/1995.80.1.255
Cardinal, B. J. (2007). Preface. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(1), AiiAv.
doi: 10.1080/02701367.2007.10599389
Cardinal, B. J., & Lee, H. (2013). Leading contributors to the Research Consortium's
annual program, 1992-2011: High-visibilty institutions, researchers, and topics.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 74-87. doi:
10.1080/1091367x.2013.741371
101
Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary
research. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.
Corbin, C. B. (1993). The field of physical education: Common goals, not common roles.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(1), 79-87. doi:
10.1080/07303084.1993.10606681
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode
surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dishman, R. K., Heath, G. W., & Lee, I. M. (2013). Physical activity epidemiology (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Edwards, W. H. (1989). Identifying the leaders in North American physical education:
Contemporary and all time notables. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 60(5), 77-79. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1989.10604457
Freedson, P. S. (2009). Interdisciplinary research funding: Reaching outside the
boundaries of kinesiology. Quest, 61, 19-24. doi:
10.1080/00336297.2009.10483597
Freeman, W. H. (2012). Physical education, exercise, and sport science in a changing
society (7th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Gandhi, M. K. (2001). M.K. Gandhi's experiments with truth. In G. Beckerlegge (Ed.),
The World Religions Reader (2nd ed., pp. 306). New York, NY: Routledge.
Giacobbi, P. R., Buman, M. P., Romney, K. J., Klatt, M. R., & Stoddard, M. J. (2012).
Scope, impact, and methods of National Institute of Health funded research in
kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 1, 118-128.
Gill, D. L. (2007). Integration: The key to sustaining kinesiology in higher education.
Quest, 59(3), 269-286. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483552
Gillis, J. (1987). Telltale disseration in physical education: What do they say about
specialization? Quest, 39(2), 142-152. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483866
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Henry, F. M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Journal of Health,
Physical Education, & Recreation, 35(7), 32-35, 69. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Henry, F. M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest, 1, 13-29. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1978.10519907
Hoffman, S. J. (1985). Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the
demise of graduate education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, 56(6), 19-22. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1985.10603786
102
Hoffman, S. J., & Harris, J. C. (2013). Introduction to kinesiology. In S. J. Hoffman
(Ed.), Introduction to kinesiology: Studying physical activity (4th ed., pp. 1-30).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Huerta, M. F., Farber, G. K., Wilder, E. L., Kleinman, D. V., Grady, P. A., Schwartz, D.
A., & Tabak, L. A. (2005). NIH roadmap interdisciplinary research initiatives.
PLoS Computational Biology, 1(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010059
Interdisciplinarity. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com Retrieved April 30, 2013, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interdisciplinary
Jacobs, J. A. (2009, November 22). Interdisciplinary hype. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Interdisciplinary-Hype/49191/
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2000). The conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P.
Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 3-24). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Knudson, D. (2005). Evidence-based practice in kinesiology: Theory to practice gap
revisited. Physical Educator, 62(4), 212-221.
Kretchmar, R. S. (2005). Jigsaw puzzles and river banks: Two ways of picturing our
future. Quest, 57(1), 171-177. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2005.10491851
Kretchmar, R. S. (2013). Tensions, integrations, messiness, and hope for the future.
Kinesiology Review, 2, 103-106.
Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and
teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sample: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.
McCloy, C. H. (1930). Professional progress through research. Research Quarterly, 1,
63-73.
McKenzie, T. L., Sallis, J. F., & Rosengard, P. (2009). Beyond the stucco tower: Design,
development, and dissemination of the SPARK physical education program.
Quest, 61, 114-127. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2009.10483606
Moran, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Morten-Ginis, K. A. (2012). Takin' it to the streets: A community-university partnership
approaches to physical activity research and knowledge translation. Kinesiology
Review, 1, 190-196.
Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical education in higher education: Chaos out of order. Quest,
42(3), 227-242. doi: 10.1080/00336297.1990.10483997
103
Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59(1), 5-24.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483532
Newell, W. T. (1998). Professionalizing interdisciplinarity: Literature review and
research agenda. In J. T. Klein & W. Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from
literature (pp. 529-563). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Park, R. J. (1991). On tilting windmills while facing armageddon. Quest, 43, 247-259.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Park, R. J. (1998). A house divided. Quest, 50(2), 213-224. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484281
Park, R. J. (2011). Historical reflections on diet, exercise, and obesity: The recurring need
to "put words into action.". Canadian Bulletin of Medical Humanities, 28, 383-
401.
Reeve, T. G. (2007). Kinesiology: Defining the academic core of our discipline. Quest,
59(1), 1-4. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2007.10483531
Rhodes, R. E., & Nasuti, G. (2011). Trends and changes in research on the psychology of
physical activity across 20 years: A quantitative analysis of 10 journals.
Preventive Medicine 53, 17-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.002
Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path.
Science, 306, 2406. doi: 10.1126/science.1103628
Rikli, R. E. (2006). Kinesiology - a "homeless" field: Addressing organization and
leadership needs. Quest, 58(3), 288-309. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2006.10491884
Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. (1984). Interdisciplinary research: Performance and policy
issues. In J. H. Jurkovich & J. H. P. Paelinck (Eds.), Problems in interdisciplinary
studies (pp. 26-45). Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Company.
Ruse, M. (2010, December 9). Interdisciplinary studies. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/interdisciplinary-studies/29821
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fotheringham, M. J. (2000). Behavioral epidemiology: A
systematic framework to classify phases of research on health promotion and
disease prevention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 22(4), 294-298. doi:
10.1007/bf02895665
Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Campbell, E. M., Htun, A. T., Bailey, L. J., & Millar, C. J. (2008).
We are what we do: Research outputs of public health. American Journal of
Preventative Medicine, 35(4), 380-385. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.039
Scanlan, T. K. (1998). Thriving versus surviving. Quest, 50, 126-133. doi:
10.1080/00336297.1998.10484270
104
Spirduso, W. W. (2009). Staying afloat in an information-age sea change. Quest, 61, 5-
18. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2009.10483596
Thomas, J. R. (1987). Are we already in pieces, or just falling apart? Quest, 39, 114-121.
doi: 10.1080/00336297.1987.10483863
Tijssen, R. J. W. (1992). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in
science and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research. Research
Policy, 21, 27-44.
White, T. P. (2010). The changing state of state funding - opportunity and challenge.
Quest, 62, 4-9. doi: 10.1080%2F00336297.2010.10483628
Wojciechowska. (2010). A quickly growing major. Inside Higher Ed, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/08/11/kinesiology
Zeigler, E. F. (2003). Socio-cultural foundations of physical education and educational
sport. Aechen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Zhu, W. (2010). Birth, growth, and challenges of ‚"Kinesmetrics" in the USA. Annales
Kinesiologie, 1(2), 95-111.
105
Appendices
106
Appendix A: Journal Mission Statements
Chapter 3
European Journal of Sport Science
“The editorial policy of the Journal pursues the multi-disciplinary aims of the College: to
promote the highest standards of scientific study and scholarship in respect of the
following fields: (a) Applied Sport Sciences; (b) Biomechanics and Motor Control; c)
Physiology and Nutrition; (d) Psychology, Social Sciences and Humanities and (e) Sports
and Exercise Medicine and Health. The Journal also aims to facilitate and enhance
communication across all sub-disciplines of the sport sciences.”
(http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?show=aimsScope&journalCode=t
ejs20#.UZp-a3CRD0A)
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
“IJBNPA is unique in its focus on the behavioral aspects of diet and physical activity; its
inclusion of multiple levels of analysis, including populations, groups and individuals;
and its inclusion of epidemiology, and behavioral, theoretical and measurement research
areas.” (http://www.ijbnpa.org/about)
International Journal of Sports Medicine
“The following sections defi ne the scope of the journal: Training & Testing; Orthopedics
& Biomechanics; Clinical Sciences; Nutrition; Behavioural Sciences; Physiology &
Biochemistry; Immunology; Genetics & Molecular Biology.”
(http://www.thieme.com/index.php)
Journal of Physical Activity and Health
“Of interest is work studying the role of physical activity as it relates to health as well as
reports of efforts to increase physical activity on individual and community levels. JPAH
is an interdisciplinary journal published for researchers and practitioners in fields of
disease and injury prevention and control where physical activity may play a vital role.”
(http://journals.humankinetics.com/jpah-mission)
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports
“The Journal considers for publication...sub-disciplines relating generally to the broad
sports medicine and sports science fields: sports medicine, sports injury (including injury
epidemiology and injury prevention), physiotherapy, podiatry, physical activity and
health, sports science, biomechanics, exercise physiology, motor control and learning,
sport and exercise psychology, sports nutrition, public health (as relevant to sport and
exercise), and rehabilitation and injury management...an interdisciplinary perspective
with specific applications to sport and exercise and its interaction with health will also be
considered.” (http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-science-and-medicine-in-
sport/1440-2440#)
107
Journal of Sport Sciences
“The Journal of Sports Sciences publishes articles of a high standard on various aspects
of the sports sciences covering a number of disciplinary bases, including anatomy,
biochemistry, biomechanics, psychology, sociology, as well as ergonomics,
kinanthropometry and other interdisciplinary perspectives. The Journal presents research
findings in the growing area of exercise and sports sciences to an international audience.”
(http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal?show=aimsScope&journalCode=rj
sp20#.UZqAnHCRD0A)
Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise
“Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise features original investigations, clinical
studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise
science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists,
physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of
information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health
fields.” (http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/pages/aboutthejournal.aspx)
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
“This comprehensive professional journal features articles and research notes
encompassing such topic areas as biomechanics, epidemiology, motor behavior,
measurement and evaluation, physiology, pedagogy, psychology and
history/philosophy/sociocultural foundations.”
(http://www.aahperd.org/rc/publications/rqes/)
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
“The journal publishes original articles on the traumatologic (orthopedic), physiologic,
biomechanic, medical (including rehabilitation), sociologic, psychologic, pedagogic,
historic and philosophic aspects of sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports is thus multidisciplinary and encompasses all elements of research in sport.”
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1600-
0838/homepage/ProductInformation.html)
The Physical Educator
The Physical Educator is one of the longest standing journals providing research-based
articles relating to physical education, health, recreation, and related areas.
(http://js.sagamorepub.com/pe)
108
Appendix B: Panel of Experts
Chapter 3
Earle Ziegler is Dean and Professor Emeritus from the University of Western Ontario,
Canada. He has over 70 years of experience in the professorial ranks. His areas include
the Sport Humanities (History and Philosophy of Sport) and Sports Administration and
Management. He earned his Ph.D. at Yale University.
Scott Melville is a Professor Emeritus from Eastern Washington University. He has 40
years of experience in the professorial ranks. His areas include Motor Learning and
Physical Education Pedagogy, with teaching experience in Adapted Physical Education
and Biomechanics. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Iowa.
Duane Knudson is a Professor and Department Chair at Texas State University. He has
25 years of experience in the professorial ranks. His area is Biomechanics. He earned his
Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Marita Cardinal is a Professor at Western Oregon University. She has 20 years of
experience in the professorial ranks. Her areas include Dance (Science and Education),
Movement Education, and Fitness. She has an interdisciplinary masters degree, as well as
an interdisciplinary teaching assignment. She earned her Ed.D. at Temple University.
Paul Loprinzi is an Assistant Professor at Bellarmine University. He has two years of
experience in the professorial ranks. His areas are Physical Activity and Health, Sport
and Exercise Psychology, and Exercise Physiology. He earned his Ph.D. at Oregon State
University.
The panel has 157 total years of experience (M = 31.4 years of experience) from across a
range of disciplinary areas, academic ranks, and administrative levels of experience. They
represent different regions of the United Stated of America (USA) and two different
countries (Canada and USA), as well as different levels of institutions (i.e., private liberal
arts, regional comprehensive, and major research university). Both men and women were
included on the panel. They also each have some degree of interdisciplinary in their
academic preparation, teaching, and/or scholarship.
109
Appendix C: Coding Protocol for Journal Articles
Chapter 3
Journal:
Year:
Article
Title:
# of
Authors:
Corresponding Author
Code Variable
Name:
Sex:
0 Male
1 Female
Institution:
Department:
Email:
0 Kinesiology affiliated
1 Not Kinesiology affiliated
0 Domestic
1 International
2 Multi-national
Article
Code Variable
dis: Discipline(s) Represented (select all that apply)
0 Behavioral
1 Biophysical
2 Sociocultural
3 Behavioral/Biophysical
4 Behavioral/Sociocultural
5 Biophysical/Sociocultural
6 Behavioral/Biophysical/Sociocultural
7 Other (specify):
110
bef: Behavioral Epidemiology Framework (select highest phase)
0 Phase 1: establish links between physical activity and outcome(s),
1 Phase 2: develop and apply measurements
2 Phase 3: identify factors that influence physical activity
3 Phase 4: evaluate interventions that promote physical activity
4 Phase 5: translate research into practice
meth: Methodology and Design
Quantitative
0 Measurement
1 Cross-sectional
2 Longitudinal
3 Quasi-experimental
4 Experimental
Qualitative
5 Content analysis
6 Interview
7 Focus groups
8 Mixed-Methods
9 Other (specify)
theof: Theoretical Framework
0 Theoretical (specify)
1 Multi-theory (specify):
2 No theory explicitly stated
fund: Funding Source
0 Yes (specify)
1 No funding source stated
idt: Interdisciplinary Typology
0 Informed Disciplinarity
1 Synthetic Interdisciplinarity
2 Transdisciplinarity
3 Conceptual Disciplinarity
111
Appendix D: Sample Questionnaire
Chapter 4
Questionnaire
Thank you for your interest in our research. You have been selected to participate in
“Uncovering the Mystery of Interdisciplinary Research in Kinesiology” because you
were identified as the corresponding author of a kinesiology-focused research article
published in 2008 to 2012 in one of ten kinesiology journals that are the focus of our
investigation. This research project is designed to understand the role of interdisciplinary
research in the field of kinesiology. The survey will take you about 15 minutes. Please
answer all questions openly and honestly. Your answers will remain confidential and will
be reported anonymously.
For the purpose of this study, interdisciplinary research is broadly defined as any study
that undertaken:
…from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. The research is based upon a
conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those
disciplines, uses study design and methodology that is not limited to any one
field, and require the use of perspective and skills of the involved disciplines
throughout phases of the research process (Aboelela, et al., 2007, p. 364)
1. How do you view yourself as a researcher?
1 2 3 4 5
Disciplinary Interdisciplinary
Focused Focused
2. Do you think interdisciplinary research is important for the field of kinesiology?
Yes No
Please explain your answer:
3. In your own opinion, please explain any potential benefits of interdisciplinary
research in the field of kinesiology?
4. In your own opinion, please explain any potential limitations of interdisciplinary
research in the field of kinesiology?
5. In your own opinion, please explain any barriers to conducting interdisciplinary
research in the field of kinesiology?
6. In your own opinion, please explain any incentives to conducting interdisciplinary
research in the field of kinesiology?
7. Please write any other comments you have about interdisciplinary research
8. What is the size of your institution?