CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Academic Writing and PublishingDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

Interdisciplinarity as an opportunity in Argentinian and Ecuadorian writing groups

Open access
Colombo, L., Rodas, E. L.·2021·Higher Education Research & Development
DOI 10.1080/07294360.2020.1756750
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

At the university level, writing groups have shown to be useful to teach and learn research writing as well as to advance academic-scientific publication and to discover collaboration opportunities among members from different disciplinary fields. At the same time, peer review, an important practice in the academic sphere, is learned within the groups through mutual peer feedback. A key feature of a writing group’s formation and progress is connected to how it is organised. One of the variables that seems to influence a group is interdisciplinarity. Nevertheless, the impact of the greater or lesser disciplinary distance in a group’s functioning has not been analysed in depth to determine its advantages or disadvantages. This article analyses interdisciplinarity of writing groups in two Latin American countries. In Argentina, the writing groups were formed by master's and doctoral students in the process of writing their thesis, while the writing groups in Ecuador were formed by early career academics and experienced research professors. The analysis of interview and group session transcriptions of the groups in both countries indicates that disciplinary distance mainly presents advantages if the distance is not too great, if there is, as one member put it, a ‘close distance.’ In this sense, research writing becomes, it seems, a meeting point for members, facilitating enriching exchanges.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07294360.2020.1756750

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Insufficient feedback proficiency and domain-specific knowledge often translate into unproductive and unreliable feedback.

    “Insufficient feedback proficiency and domain-specific knowledge often translate into unproductive and unreliable feedback (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Colombo and Rodas, 2021; Kostopoulou and O’Dwyer, 2021; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Xu and Zhang, 2023).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Colombo and Rodas, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Colombo, L., & Rodas, E. L.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • University of Cuenca (EC)
Corresponding author
Colombo, L.
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education Research & Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-04-29
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
207-219
ISSN
  • 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8366
DOI
10.1080/07294360.2020.1756750
OpenAlex
W3020967028
Cited by
20
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4
FWCI
6.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion)
  • Repositorio Institucional (Universidad de Cuenca) (submittedVersion)
  • Conicet (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Técnica, Argentina (PICT 2014-2793)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
writing groups, interdisciplinarity, academic writing, peer review, peer feedback, thesis writing, early career academics, master's and doctoral students, Latin American universities, Argentina, Ecuador

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review