ArticlePEC innovation2024
Uneasiness in interdisciplinary research and the importance of metaphors: A case story on building an interdisciplinary chronic pain research team.
Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning from brilliant failures.PEC innovation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as a key method to tackle complex societal challenges and stimulate creativity to find innovative solutions. Our key goal when starting our collaboration was to come to innovative ways of treating chronic pain. An ambitious goal that requires out-of-the-box and high-risk-high-gain research. However, interdisciplinary research in practice can be uneasy and will not always be successful. This paper describes a case story focussing on the challenges we faced building an interdisciplinary team. One of the most important lessons is that researchers from different disciplines may think they speak a universal 'language of science', but a thorough understanding of each other's ways of working, research paradigms, methods, and concepts is necessary before they can start working together on solving scientific questions. In fact, if researchers cannot understand each other's language, they cannot expect patients to understand scientific language either. Lastly, for academics to engage with a non-scientific audience and vice-versa, we need to find and create places to meet and find ways to interact effectively. Language is the medium through which all these interactions take place. It is therefore essential that language takes a central place in the process of collaboration across disciplines, interdisciplinary research, patient participation and public engagement. In this case story, we share our experiences in creating a common language, summarized in five steps (1: creating the team; 2: metaphor-forced introduction to disciplines; 3: creating common ground; 4: outreach; 5: integration). Metaphors play an important role in this process. We will demonstrate how we reflectively progressed through these steps while enhancing interdisciplinarity, (scientific) innovation and public engagement. This five-step journey can be used as a process-tool for any other high-risk-high-gain research team seeking to innovate through interdisciplinarity - with the risk of becoming a brilliant failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.