Status and Challenges of Convergence Knowledge in Disaster Science: A Qualitative Analysis of Researchers’ Responses at Tohoku University

Abstract

Researchers with different academic backgrounds work together in disaster science. This qualitative study explores similarities and differences in the perceptions of values and measures of research outcomes in disaster science’s sub-disciplines. We also investigate how researchers trained initially in different study areas communicate, reflecting the state of Convergence Knowledge in disaster science. In this paper, 37 disaster science researchers in the sciences and humanities responded to an open-ended questionnaire survey. Regardless of their specialties, they evaluated an academic paper based on three main criteria: the researchers’ perception of the paper, the medium in which the paper was published, and the way it was used and read. They tended to value originality and the capacity to meet social needs. They pointed out matters in disaster science that should be acknowledged and the need for new indicators to assess them properly. However, attitudes toward numerical metrics and publication frequency differed by discipline. Also, there are few standard disaster science journals where they publish their successful papers, and the number of peers with whom they can interact professionally is limited. Therefore, the scope of academic understanding among disaster science researchers is limited, and its Convergence Knowledge has not yet been systematically advanced. However, mutual differences and the significance of interdisciplinary collaboration are recognized. Clarifying the benefits of interdisciplinary studies for researchers and launching appropriate indicators through cooperation among diverse sub-disciplines may advance Convergence Knowledge.