Next Article in Journal
The Reciprocal Relationship Between Vocational Indecision and Academic Stress, and How to Cope with It Through Resilience
Previous Article in Journal
Teachers’ Beliefs About the Consequences of Grade Retention: Scale Validation and Differences Across Individual and School-Level Factors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/educsci15020221
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in International Higher Education Research: Characteristics and Mechanisms

by
Wenxiu Jia
1,
Li Pan
1,*,
Siobhan Neary
2 and
Nicki Moore
2
1
Faculty of Education, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
2
International Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby, Derby DE22 1GB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(2), 221; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020221
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 30 January 2025 / Accepted: 5 February 2025 / Published: 11 February 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Interdisciplinary knowledge flow provides methodological and theoretical support for solving complex problems in higher education. Based on Darcy’s law, this study constructs a three-dimensional analysis framework for knowledge slope, knowledge stickiness, and flow medium, and combines it with bibliometric methods to analyze key words, references, and other information in 10 journals in JCR 1 or 2 higher education research (HER) fields from 2000 to 2022, so as to explore the characteristics and mechanisms of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. The results show that, in the process of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER, the spillover amount of knowledge exchange between HER and other disciplines/fields is less than the absorption amount, and the direction of knowledge flow is knowledge-importing. The phenomenon of reciprocal assimilation between HER and other disciplines/fields is significant, and the knowledge network shows the characteristics of family resemblance. Interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER is influenced by three factors, among which knowledge slope plays a promoting role, knowledge stickiness plays a hindering role, and the flow medium has a gatekeeper effect in the process.

1. Introduction

As an open field of study, researchers of higher education often adopt knowledge from various disciplines/fields to solve complex problems in the field, which leads to the complexity and plurality of its knowledge sources and knowledge composition (X. Wang, 2010). Bess and Clark (1985) not only showed that higher education is a multidisciplinary open research field but also revealed the source and composition of knowledge in higher education to a certain extent. As an important knowledge carrier, higher education research (HER) is the result of the continuous cultivation of researchers in the field, and it is also the greenhouse of the interaction between knowledge from various disciplines. After some screening, knowledge from various fields flows into HER and is applied by higher education researchers (HERers), forming the interdisciplinary phenomenon of HER and promoting the interdisciplinary knowledge flow of HER. In this process, the knowledge production and evolution of HER continue to increase. While promoting the constant reorganization and transformation of knowledge in this field (Piaget, 2002), the integration of HER and various fields or methods forms a new and richer knowledge category (Mitchell, 1995), which promotes the continuous progress and development of HER. Simultaneously, the important value of interdisciplinary knowledge flow among different research fields has attracted the attention of many scholars, especially in the presentation and measurement of interdisciplinary knowledge flow (Yang & Liu, 2022).
In previous studies, researchers have proposed a variety of methods to quantify interdisciplinary knowledge flows (Liu et al., 2017a). The most common interdisciplinary research is based on citation behavior (L. Zhang et al., 2016; Zhu & Yan, 2015). Many scholars believe that the occurrence of citations leads to knowledge exchange or integration between disciplines and is a process involving the creation of new knowledge (Wagner et al., 2011). Some scholars have also measured the degree of interdisciplinarity presented by interdisciplinary knowledge flows on related research topics using indicators or media such as formulas (Pratt, 2010), teamwork outputs (Porter et al., 2008), and research outcomes (Y. Wang et al., 2017). For example, Zhou et al. (2023) directly proposed a multidimensional framework to quantify interdisciplinary knowledge flows, revealing the degree of interdisciplinarity in different disciplines from a three-dimensional framework of breadth, intensity, and homogeneity. However, there is some debate as to whether co-authorship by researchers from different disciplines can lead to knowledge integration in interdisciplinary research. While some scholars are in favor of this (Porter et al., 2007), others argue that knowledge integration is an epistemological category, and that the measurement of interdisciplinarity should depend more on the content of the research outputs than on cooperation and affiliation (Rafols & Meyer, 2007). Taken together, many papers have explored some aspects of interdisciplinarity and knowledge flows, such as analyzing interdisciplinarity in terms of a theme (Rafols & Meyer, 2009) or measuring interdisciplinarity in some fields or disciplines through citation behavior (Liu et al., 2017b; Albert et al., 2022a). However, there is a lack of exploration of the characteristics of interdisciplinary knowledge flows in HER.
To elucidate this process, this study analyzes the data of 10 journals in the field of HER published in JCR 1 or 2 between 2000 and 2022, and presents the interdisciplinary path of knowledge absorption and knowledge diffusion in HER by means of bibliometrics. On the one hand, the pattern analysis and characteristics summary of the knowledge composition structure of various disciplines in HER are carried out. On the other hand, this study also explores the influencing factors and rules of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. This will not only help the academic community of HER to have a deeper understanding of the characteristics and rules of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER and broaden the depth and breadth of HER, but will also help HERers to combine the rules of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER and better adopt a multidisciplinary approach to solving the complex problems faced in reality.

2. Theoretical Framework

Knowledge, as an intangible fluid, also shares some general properties with tangible fluids, particularly in terms of the structure, characteristics, and influencing factors of its flow. Regarding structure, knowledge is a fluid-like substance, which consists of structured experiences, values, information with specific meanings, and expert insights (Davenport & Prusak, 2000). This process involves at least three essential elements: the knowledge source, transmission path, and knowledge recipients (Davenport & Prusak, 2000). Other scholars suggest that knowledge flow refers to the process or mechanism through which knowledge circulates between individuals, influenced by three key factors: the subject, content, and direction (Zhuge, 2002). In terms of the characteristics of knowledge flow, research indicates that significant effects, such as flow field effects (Abramo & D’Angelo, 2020) and potential difference effects (Zhuge et al., 2007), occur during the process. Influencing factors include both internal and external elements, such as the medium of knowledge (Park & Kang, 2009), the stickiness of knowledge (F. Zhang et al., 2020), and external environmental conditions (Cummings & Teng, 2003). This resembles the flow characteristics of fluids in porous media, as described by Darcy’s law. This law was established by the French physicist Henry Darcy, who conducted in-depth research on fluid permeation in porous geological media and identified the relationship between fluid flow and various influencing factors (Whitaker, 1986). The basic equation of linear seepage law is as follows:
Q = A k J = A γ μ   ∆ h L
In this equation, Q represents the flow rate, A is the cross-sectional area of the medium, k is the permeability coefficient, and J is the hydraulic gradient. Specifically, the fluid permeability (Q) is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area (A), the medium’s permeability (γ), and the flow loss (h), while it is inversely proportional to the fluid properties (μ) and the seepage length (L).
According to Darcy’s law, the influences on the flow of knowledge from the knowledge source to the knowledge recipient are also related to several of the above factors. First, although the seepage section area can be regarded as the communication link of knowledge flow by analogy to the process of knowledge flow, HER, as an open research field, objectively has the same level of links for various subject fields without any significant difference. Secondly, regarding fluid properties, knowledge fluids also have their own properties, i.e., knowledge stickiness. The concept of knowledge stickiness derives from Von Hippel’s (1994) research on information stickiness. Szulanski (1996) believed that knowledge experiences difficulty flowing between disciplines because of its specificity, complexity, and internal recessiveness. Medium permeability is the mechanism of knowledge transmission and plays a screening role in the flow of knowledge to the first degree. Third, medium permeability is the medium through which knowledge is disseminated, invisibly controlling what kind of knowledge can flow into HER and filtering the flow of knowledge. Finally, compared to the concept of potential difference in fluid mechanics, the driving force of knowledge flow is the knowledge potential difference.
Theoretically, the greater the knowledge potential difference between knowledge subjects, the better the knowledge flow effect will be. However, the influence of flow distance still exists among knowledge subjects, resulting in differences in knowledge flow across various disciplines in HER. This is expressed in fluid mechanics as the hydraulic gradient, which is the ratio of the vertical height of the flow to the length of the seepage flow. There is a similar relationship between knowledge potential difference and flow distance in knowledge flow; in this study, the ratio of knowledge potential difference to flow distance is defined as knowledge slope, which represents the dynamic and distance relationship between knowledge “subject” and knowledge “acceptor”.
Therefore, based on Darcy’s law, and combined with the characteristics of knowledge flow in HER, an analytical model for how the comprehensive construction of knowledge flow effects in HER is obtained, in which knowledge flow in HER is influenced by three factors. The first factor is the knowledge slope, the ability of knowledge absorption and diffusion under the influence of the knowledge potential difference between the knowledge source and the knowledge acceptor and flow distance. The second is knowledge stickiness, denoting the characteristics of knowledge itself, such as specificity, complexity, and recessiveness. The third is medium permeability, the medium communicating between the knowledge source and knowledge acceptor. The specific relationships are shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Selection and Processing

This study selected 10 highly cited journals in the higher education Journal Citation Reports 1 and 2. These include Studies in Higher Education, Higher Education, HER and Development, Teaching in Higher Education, Review of Higher Education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, and Internet and Higher Education. Through the Web of Science database, all the literature in the above-mentioned journals was searched from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022, and a total of 13,644 search results were obtained. The literature retrieval type was locked as an article, and 11,224 pieces of data were retrieved. Using these as the original data and removing missing and incomplete information, 10,542 pieces and 302,111 references of data were obtained. The relevant information was then sorted out from the final literature, and keywords, authors, references, and other information were extracted for follow-up research.

3.2. Research Tools and Measurement Methods

The data were statistically analyzed using a bibliometric method, and the results were visualized using VOSviewer, Pajek, and other software packages. First, this study constructs a domain overlay map based on the global maps of science, visualizes the citing references and cited references in the data, and demonstrates the relationship between knowledge slope and interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. Secondly, based on the average time of keywords appearing in HER from 2000 to 2022 and the characteristics of low-frequency keywords in HER knowledge flow, this study explores the relationship between knowledge stickiness and interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. Finally, based on the domain distribution of high-frequency keywords in the knowledge flow of HER, the study explores the relationship between the flow medium and the interdisciplinary knowledge flow of HER.

4. Results

4.1. Knowledge Slope and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

To better show the knowledge potential difference and flow distance between various subject areas and HER, this study produced a domain overlay map of knowledge absorption and diffusion in HER based on the data of knowledge absorption and knowledge diffusion in HER combined with global maps of science (Leydesdorff et al., 2012). The results are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, HER primarily focuses on knowledge absorption and diffusion activities in Psychology and Social Sciences, mainly in relation to Education and Educational Research, Management, Sociology, Psychology, and Economics. The flow of knowledge generated in the remaining four categories was relatively small and was only relatively large in individual disciplines/areas. Examples include Environmental Sciences in Chemistry and Physics, Green Sustainable Science in Ecology and Environmental S&T Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in Computer Science, interdisciplinary applications, Biology, and Multidisciplinary Science in Medicine. The results show that, under the premise of knowledge potential differences between HER and various disciplines/fields, the flow distance between the subjects of knowledge flow is also affected.
The greater the knowledge potential difference, the more knowledge can flow; the larger the tissue distance, that is, the longer the flow distance between the two, the slower the flow. Knowledge potential differences promote knowledge flow in HER, whereas flow distance has the opposite effect. For example, in the same subject fields of Psychology and Social Sciences, the knowledge absorbed by HER in psychology is higher than that in law precisely because knowledge in the field of psychology is more fluid for HER. In different subject areas, HER notably absorbs less knowledge in the fields of Chemistry and Physics, Ecology and Environmental S&T, Engineering and Mathematics, and Biology and Medicine. This is not only because the knowledge in these four areas has a relatively high level of difficulty in flowing into HER, but also because the organizations are far away, resulting in the difficulty of knowledge flow. Second, from the perspective of knowledge diffusion, the knowledge flow activities of disciplines/fields in Psychology and Social Sciences in HER are significantly higher than those in other scientific categories, indicating that the process is affected by flow distance. Based on these results and Darcy’s law, the relationship between knowledge potential difference and flow distance can be expressed by the knowledge slope, which is the ratio of the two. The greater the ratio, the greater the knowledge slope, and the easier the knowledge flow. As shown in Figure 4, the knowledge potential difference between each subject area and HER can be regarded as the height of the right triangle, the flow distance between each subject area and HER as the base of the right triangle, and the knowledge slope as the slope of the right triangle.
The figure shows that, under the same knowledge potential difference, the greater the flow distance, the smaller the knowledge slope, and the knowledge slope between the knowledge flow subjects (DE) is greater than that of DB (J > J′). Under the same flow distance, the greater the knowledge potential difference, the greater the knowledge slope; for example, the knowledge slope between knowledge flow subjects AB is greater than that of DB (J″ > J′). In the knowledge flow of HER, disciplines or fields at the same distance from HER have different impacts due to the varying knowledge potential differences between each discipline and HER’s knowledge structure. Additionally, the impacts of disciplines or fields at different distances are influenced by both the flow distance and the differences in knowledge potential, creating the knowledge flow phenomena illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3. For example, although there is a large knowledge gap between various disciplines in HER, such knowledge gaps will not flow into HER at a high speed and efficiency because of the distance from the organization of HER. Furthermore, the knowledge flow of HER is aimed at knowledge that can be incorporated into the knowledge structure of HER; knowledge that is not directly related to HER needs to be associated with more research and serve as a structural hole to build a bridge of knowledge flow between HER and other disciplines/fields. Therefore, knowledge flow in HER is related to the knowledge slope.

4.2. Knowledge Stickiness and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

In the fluid flow process, the stickiness of the physical fluid causes its fluid molecules to adhere to the flow pipe, making flow difficult, and part of the mechanical energy of the fluid is converted into heat, resulting in energy loss. Similarly, the stickiness of knowledge fluid is called knowledge stickiness. In the knowledge flow field of HER, the speed and efficiency of knowledge flow will also lead to loss of knowledge because of the existence of “friction resistance”. However, several factors also affect knowledge stickiness. Through an empirical analysis of data, Szulanski (1996) concluded that the lack of knowledge absorption capacity of the receiver, the ambiguity of cause and effect, and the difficult relationship between the source of knowledge and the receiver dominated the obstacles to knowledge transfer related to motivation. He believed that there are four categories of factors within an organization that affect the stickiness of knowledge: characteristics of the transferred knowledge; characteristics of the knowledge source; characteristics of the knowledge recipient; and the transfer environment (Szulanski, 1996). Simonin (1999) used empirical research to identify the causes of knowledge ambiguity in the process of knowledge transfer, which is derived from knowledge implicativeness, complexity, specificity, experience, partner protection, and cultural and flow distance. Some scholars even put forward relevant solutions to the stickiness of knowledge in the course teaching process (Daugule & Kapenieks, 2019).
In this study, the flow of knowledge in HER is also affected by knowledge stickiness, which is mainly affected by the characteristics of knowledge itself, including its complexity, internal recessiveness, and specificity. The higher the complexity of knowledge, the higher the internal recessiveness and specificity of knowledge, the higher the knowledge stickiness, and the slower and more difficult the flow of knowledge. As shown in the keyword graph of HER in Figure 5, most keywords with a short average occurrence time are proper nouns, such as sustainability, mobility, and burnout. The average time of occurrence in HER was 2018, indicating that the flow of HER was slow. Furthermore, the time is late. As can also be seen from Table 1, HER has difficulty generating knowledge flows in Mycology, whether through knowledge absorption or diffusion. In contrast, education, students, and universities in Education and Educational Research have always been at the center of HER. This is not only related to the potential difference and flow distance of mobile knowledge between various disciplines/fields and HER but is also significantly related to knowledge stickiness in various disciplines/fields. Some disciplines’ proper names and proprietary academic terms are difficult to flow into other disciplines, not only due to the rigor of their disciplinary knowledge systems but also because of the self-maintenance of their academic discourse. This creates disciplinary barriers that are difficult to overcome. The higher the complexity, implicitness, and proprietary degree of the knowledge itself, the more challenging it is for it to flow into other fields of research, resulting in a slower knowledge flow.

4.3. Medium Permeability and Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

The findings showed that knowledge absorption in HER derives from 254 disciplines and the absorption intensity of each discipline is shown in Table 2 (top 30). Among them, Education and Educational Research ranks first, accounting for 37.77%, while other disciplines account for relatively little absorption intensity, totaling no more than 6%. Management is second (5.36%), followed by Sociology (3.77%), Psychology, Educational (3.71%), and Economics (3.43%). These fields are closely related to the object, subject, and organization of HER. For example, when studying college students’ learning, many researchers will refer to knowledge related to psychology (e.g., Bargmann et al., 2021; Flores et al., 2021; Matczak et al., 2022), while research on university organization management and concept development will refer to knowledge related to management, sociology, and business (Borlaug et al., 2022; MacDonald, 2012). Some scholars refer to Green and Sustainable Science and Technology and other fields when investigating the sustainable development of higher education (e.g., Avelar & Farina, 2022; Laurett et al., 2022; Menon & Suresh, 2022). Knowledge absorption in HER shows this result.
The literature was also processed by citing original data and a total of 118,424 articles were identified. The communication ratio of HER was less than 1 (118,424/302,111 < 1); therefore, HER is currently in the stage of knowledge input. After downloading and processing the WOS categories of 118,424 articles, there were 251 source disciplines of knowledge diffusion in HER, which is slightly lower than the knowledge absorption. The diffusion intensity of each discipline is listed in Table 3 (top 30). Education and Educational Research still occupies a dominant position, accounting for 22.42%, whereas other disciplines account for a relatively small proportion, with only 12 disciplines representing more than 1%. Education Scientific Disciplines rank second at 2.36%, followed by Management at 2.04%, Green Sustainable Science Technology (1.55%), and Environmental Sciences (1.45%). This shows that, in addition to the self-drawing of HER, knowledge is also returned to the subject and absorbed to form a knowledge interaction and exchange. Additionally, these results show that compared with the subject/field of knowledge absorption in HER, the order of the two disciplines in the diffusion of knowledge changes, although there is no great innovation in the category. Valuable knowledge for various fields can be extracted from the topics/questions of HER; for example, some scholars analyze students’ academic engagement through the classroom performance of college students (Mishall et al., 2022; Taşkın & Kılıç Çakmak, 2022). Others explore smart campus issues through the sustainable development of students’ key abilities (Zaballos et al., 2020). In summary, the more similar the research themes/issues are to those of concern to HER, the more frequent the flow of knowledge between HER and this discipline/field.

5. Discussion

In this paper, we used Darcy’s law to establish an interdisciplinary knowledge flow analysis framework for HER. Bibliometric methods were also applied to present the patterns of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. This reflects the complex phenomena of cross-disciplinary knowledge absorption and diffusion between HER and other disciplines/fields, forming a unique knowledge flow field within HER. This process is influenced by the knowledge slope, knowledge stickiness, and the knowledge flow medium.
Based on the characteristics and mechanisms of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER, educational administrative bodies, research institutions, and universities can develop more effective teams and organizational structures in today’s rapidly changing social environment. This will foster cross-disciplinary and cross-field cooperation, transforming knowledge into practical actions to solve environmental and social problems. It will also help address complex real-world issues through multidisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, for HERers, understanding the patterns of interdisciplinary knowledge flow can provide valuable insights and innovative inspiration, helping them discover new knowledge combinations and points of innovation to optimize the content and structure of HER.

5.1. Characterization of Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flows in HER

5.1.1. The Direction of Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flows in HER Is Knowledge-Importing

The exchange ratio theory defines the type of flow of disciplines in the process of knowledge diffusion and exchange, which refers to the ratio of the number of documents citing a discipline to the number of documents being cited by the same discipline in the interdisciplinary citation network. A ratio of less than 1 indicates that the knowledge overflow of a discipline is less than its absorption, indicating an input-type discipline. On the other hand, a ratio greater than 1 indicates an output-type discipline (Yue & Xu, 2019). In the interdisciplinary knowledge flow of international HER during 2000–2022, the number of references cited by HER institutes is greater than the number of references cited in their literature; their knowledge spillovers are smaller than their knowledge uptake; their knowledge exchange ratio is less than 1 (118,424/30,211 < 1); and their knowledge flow is knowledge-importing (Rodríguez, 2017). Disciplinary potential energy theory suggests that the relative position between two different disciplines in a scientific system through citation relationships creates a disciplinary potential energy, which divides the disciplines into upstream and downstream relationships and reveals the direction of knowledge flow between disciplines (Lv & Li, 2021). In the field of Social Sciences and Humanities, Psychology, Sociology, History, and Philosophy are upstream and less volatile, exporting knowledge to other disciplines (Lv & Li, 2021). Higher education studies is at the downstream end of the Psychology and Social Sciences spectrum, and is subject to the knowledge outputs of the upstream disciplines of Education and Educational Research, Management, Sociology, Psychology, and Economics. Studies have shown that Philosophy, History, and Language often act as exporters of knowledge to other disciplines, while Education and Sociology often act as importers that absorb knowledge from other disciplines (Urata, 1990). This correlates more with disciplinary closure or openness to external knowledge (Truc et al., 2023).

5.1.2. Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flows in HER Present Knowledge Networks of Family Resemblance

Piaget considered interdisciplinarity to be the result of “reciprocal assimilation” between disciplines, in which both or all the disciplines involved are transformed through interaction (Klein, 1990). In the process of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER, the phenomenon of “reciprocal assimilation” between disciplines/fields is also very significant, and Wittgenstein (1953) referred to this characteristic as “family resemblance”. The research themes/problems involved in HER are common issues across numerous disciplines. Researchers use knowledge from various disciplines/fields to explain, reveal, and solve research themes/problems in higher education. Various types of knowledge create certain connections among each other in the field of higher education, forming research communities around specific topics, thus forming a unique knowledge network structure for HER (Sorenson et al., 2002). During the knowledge flow process of HER from 2000 to 2022, the disciplines/fields with a larger flow of knowledge are mostly those close to the field of HER. Although the knowledge flow of distant disciplines seems numerous in terms of types, the proportion distributed among individuals is small. Looking at the five major areas of the science map, HER mainly engages in knowledge absorption and diffusion activities within Psychology and Social Sciences, with relatively less knowledge flow occurring in the other four areas, but with some potential for development. From a micro-disciplinary perspective, HER mainly involves the flow of knowledge in disciplines such as Education and Educational Research, Management, Sociology, Psychology, and Economics, with smaller proportions in other disciplines, and the overall characteristic of interdisciplinary knowledge flow is significant. Among them, the knowledge flow between HER and Education and Educational Research accounts for the most, with a knowledge absorption proportion of 37.77% and a knowledge diffusion proportion of 22.42%.

5.2. Mechanism of Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

5.2.1. Knowledge Slopes Facilitate Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flows in HER

The ratio of the knowledge potential difference to the knowledge slope represents, to a certain extent, the capacity for interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER. The knowledge potential difference promotes the flow of knowledge in HER, while the distance of flow has the opposite effect. Thus, interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER is influenced by both the knowledge potential difference and the distance of flow. Therefore, although knowledge from distant disciplines that differ significantly from HER has a certain potential for flow, the distance between them is too great, and the knowledge that can participate in the flow must be filtered through the knowledge gatekeepers of various disciplines/fields to enter into HER. This makes it difficult to form large-scale and organized flows, characterized by randomness and looseness, such as in the fields of Chemistry and Physics, Ecology and Environmental S&T, Engineering and Mathematics, and Biology and Medicine. Relevant studies also indicate that, from the perspective of knowledge distance, if there is shared knowledge between the knowledge source and the knowledge receptor, it will make the transfer easier (Dixon, 2000). Disciplines in the Psychology and Social Sciences fields, which are closer to HER in terms of distance, are more likely to engage in knowledge flow with it, such as Management, Sociology, Psychology, and Economics. This is also one of the reasons for the formation of the “family resemblance” knowledge network.

5.2.2. Knowledge Stickiness Hinders Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

The higher the complexity, tacitness, and proprietary nature of knowledge itself, the more difficult it is to flow into research in other fields. Simple knowledge often only requires a small amount of information to be clearly described, while complex knowledge requires a large amount of information to explain it clearly. The greater the complexity of knowledge, the higher the level of professionalism and difficulty of understanding it implies, the higher the demands on the capabilities of both parties in knowledge transfer, and the more difficult the diffusion and absorption of knowledge become (Huan et al., 2017). Jensen and Meckling (1992) explicitly pointed out that the nature of knowledge affects the cost of knowledge transformation. Reed and DeFillippi (1990) also believed that the complexity of knowledge increases the difficulty for knowledge recipients to recognize and understand the knowledge itself, increases the difficulty of knowledge transfer, and thus reduces the efficiency of knowledge transfer. Lakatos (1978), in his scientific research program, proposed that scientific theories have a most basic, unquestionable “hard core” and a “protective belt” composed of auxiliary substances that protect the truth. Once a scientific crisis occurs, it is not the “hard core” that has the problem, but the “protective belt” that needs to be adjusted to ensure the precision and continuity of science (Lakatos, 1978). Thus, with the existence of the disciplinary “hard core” and “protective belt”, interdisciplinary knowledge flow is challenging but full of innovation. Higher education research can also develop its own “hard core” and “protective belt” in this process, but it is more open and inclusive compared to other disciplines. Moreover, due to the existence of knowledge stickiness, the knowledge flow between higher education research and other disciplines is relatively difficult. However, since Education and Educational Research, Management, Sociology, Psychology, and Economics already have intersections or overlaps with the research topics involved in higher education research, these disciplinary “hard cores” can be directly applied in the problem-solving process, hence their knowledge structure exhibits distinct family resemblance characteristics.

5.2.3. Medium Permeability Determines the Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in HER

In the interdisciplinary knowledge flow of HER, whether relevant knowledge can be absorbed by HER depends on whether it helps to explain higher education phenomena, reveal the laws of higher education, and solve higher education problems. The more similar the knowledge is to the research topics/problems on which HER focuses, the higher the frequency of the knowledge flow. The same is true for the knowledge diffusion phenomenon in HER; whether the knowledge and principles embedded in HER can make corresponding contributions to other disciplines/fields is a key condition for its interdisciplinary knowledge flow. This aligns with Lewin’s (1947) gatekeeper theory, which posits that information flows along certain channels within gatekeeper-guarded gate areas during the dissemination process, and only information that meets group standards or the gatekeeper’s value specifications can be allowed into the channel for dissemination. Conversely, information that does not meet these criteria is filtered out and cannot enter the organization (Lewin, 1947). Some scholars have found that the more culturally similar the two parties in knowledge flow are, the smoother the knowledge flow will be; on the other hand, the greater the cultural difference between the knowledge receiver and sender, the more difficult it is for knowledge to flow between them (Albert et al., 2022a). Ghoshal and Bartlett (1988) also pointed out that transmission channels and paths are important factors affecting the efficiency of knowledge flow. In addition, Teichler and Sadlak (2000) categorize higher education researchers into six types: discipline-based temporary higher education researchers, discipline-based long-term higher education researchers, theme-based academic higher education researchers, applied higher education researchers (policy researchers, institutional researchers), consultants, and practical reflectors. The different starting and ending points in Teichler and Sadlak (2000) lead to an increasingly pronounced gatekeeper effect.

6. Conclusions and Implications

In the process of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER, the spillover amount of knowledge exchange between HER and other disciplines/fields is less than the absorption amount, and the knowledge flow is “knowledge input type”. The phenomenon of “reciprocal assimilation” between HER and other disciplines/fields is significant, and the knowledge network shows the characteristics of “family resemblance”. In addition, interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER is influenced by three factors, among which, knowledge slope plays a promoting role, knowledge stickiness plays a hindering role, and the flow medium has a “gatekeeper” effect in the process.
HERers need to not only explore higher education issues from an interdisciplinary perspective but also be flexible in their “role positioning”, remove the “functional fixation” of their roles, and conduct an in-depth exploration of higher education research from multiple angles, updating the knowledge structure of higher education research. First, HERers must cultivate an interdisciplinary vision and engage in multidisciplinary and multi-issue studies. While delving into their own expertise, they should also be able to understand and apply the knowledge and methods of other disciplines, becoming “T-shaped” talents. Only in this way can higher education research problems be placed in a more diverse disciplinary context, expand the communication channels of higher education research, and thus better facilitate the resolution of higher education issues. Second, HERers must engage in the open science movement. UNESCO, in its “Recommendation on Open Science”, provides a definition of open science and emphasizes the importance of open science in enhancing scientific cooperation and information sharing, and in opening up the processes of scientific knowledge creation and dissemination to a broader public (UNESCO, 2021). Open science encompasses all aspects of scientific disciplines and academic practices, mainly based on open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructure, open participation by societal actors, and open dialogue with other knowledge systems (UNESCO, 2021). Therefore, HERers can engage in or establish interdisciplinary research teams, participate in international open science projects, and collaborate with other countries and international organizations through open science platforms. Additionally, they can establish HER think tanks to increase the permeability of research media, reduce the flow barriers caused by knowledge stickiness, and enhance the knowledge slope in the research threshold, thereby promoting the development of HER and solving complex problems. Relevant studies have shown that factors such as the degree of mutual openness between knowledge subjects in the higher education research field, knowledge similarity, scientific research groups, and the cooperative consciousness of organizational institutions significantly affect the flow of knowledge in higher education research (Albert et al., 2022b). Therefore, breaking down disciplinary barriers and promoting scientific research cooperation are important pathways to promote the flow of knowledge in higher education research (Anthony, 2020).

7. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has some limitations. For example, the research data selected in this study came from only 10 journals, which do not completely cover all samples of HER since the new century, and there may be some bias. Additionally, the research adopts the methods and tools of scientometrics to discuss the problem. Although it reveals the characteristics and mechanisms of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER to a certain extent, the research still has some defects in the presentation of the results due to the limitations of software and algorithms. Therefore, the next step in the research will not only improve the above shortcomings, but will also continue to deeply explore the principles of interdisciplinary knowledge flow in HER, and carry out detailed exploration of its specific and key situational variables. In addition, a longitudinal study will be conducted to track the characteristics and paths of knowledge flow over time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.J. and L.P.; Methodology, W.J.; Software, W.J.; Validation, W.J. and L.P.; Formal analysis, W.J.; Investigation, W.J.; Resources, W.J. and L.P.; Data curation, W.J.; Writing—original draft preparation, W.J. and L.P.; Writing—review and editing, W.J., L.P., S.N. and N.M.; Visualization, W.J. and L.P.; Supervision, L.P.; Project administration, L.P.; Funding acquisition, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, General Project in Education, grant number BIA210162.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2020). The domestic localization of knowledge flows as evidenced by publication citation: The case of Italy. Scientometrics, 125, 1305–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Albert, M., Rowland, P., Friesen, F., & Laberge, S. (2022a). Barriers to cross-disciplinary knowledge flow: The case of medical education research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11(3), 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Albert, M., Vuolanto, P., & Laberge, S. (2022b). Re-appraising disciplines: A commentary. Studies in Higher Education, 48, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anthony, B., Jr. (2020). Information flow analysis of a knowledge mapping-based system for university alumni collaboration: A practical approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 756–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Avelar, A. B., & Farina, M. C. (2022). The relationship between the incorporation of sustainability in higher education and the student’s behavior: Self-reported sustainable behavior scale. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(7), 1749–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bargmann, C., Thiele, L., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). Motivation matters: Predicting students’ career decidedness and intention to drop out after the first year in higher education. Higher Education, 83, 845–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bess, J. L., & Clark, B. (1985). Perspectives on higher education: Eight disciplinary and comparative views. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borlaug, S. B., Tellmann, S. M., & Vabø, A. (2022). Nested identities and identification in higher education institutions—The role of organizational and academic identities. Higher Education, 85, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1–2), 39–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Daugule, I., & Kapenieks, A. (2019). Knowledge flow analysis: The quantitative method for knowledge stickiness analysis in online course. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 7(1), 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Flores, M. A., Barros, A., Simão, A. M., Pereira, D., Flores, P., Fernandes, E. L., Costa, L., & Ferreira, P. D. (2021). Portuguese higher education students’ adaptation to online teaching and learning in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Personal and contextual factors. Higher Education, 83, 1389–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1988). Creation, adoption and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 365–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Huan, H., Yongyuan, M., Sheng, Z., & Qinchao, D. (2017). Characteristics of knowledge, people engaged in knowledge transfer and knowledge stickiness: Evidence from Chinese R&D team. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1559–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1992). Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure. In L. Werin, & H. Wijkander (Eds.), Contract economics (pp. 251–274). Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  17. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: Histories, theories, and methods. Wayne State University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (pp. 48–49). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Laurett, R., Paço, A. D., & Mainardes, E. W. (2022). Sustainability in higher education institutions: A case study of project FUCAPE 120% sustainable. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(7), 1604–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S. F., & Rafols, I. (2012). Global maps of science based on the new Web of Science categories. Scientometrics, 94, 589–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, M., Hu, X., & Li, J. (2017a). Knowledge flow in China’s humanities and social sciences. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 52, 607–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, M., Shi, D., Li, J., & Lozano, S. (2017b). Double-edged sword of interdisciplinary knowledge flow from hard sciences to humanities and social sciences: Evidence from china. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lv, H., & Li, J. (2021). 1987–2016年跨学科知识流动的规律: 一个新的视角“学科势能”. [An investigation of interdisciplinary knowledge flow from 1987 to 2016: A new perspective of “disciplinary potential energy”]. 图书情报知识 [Documentation, Information & Knowledge], 38(4), 125–135. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. MacDonald, G. P. (2012). Theorizing university identity development: Multiple perspectives and common goals. Higher Education, 65, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Matczak, A., Akdogan, H., & Ashmore, D. (2022). The paradox of technology in online education during the COVID-19 pandemic: The experiences of safety and security students in a Dutch university. Higher Education, 86, 1269–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Menon, S., & Suresh, M. (2022). Development of assessment framework for environmental sustainability in higher education institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(7), 1445–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mishall, P. L., Meguid, E. A., Khalil, M. K., & Lee, L. M. (2022). Transition to effective online anatomical sciences teaching and assessments in the pandemic era of COVID-19 should be evidence-based. Medical Science Educator, 32, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995). Interdisciplinarity and Visual Culture. The Art Bulletin, 77(4), 540–544. [Google Scholar]
  30. Park, H. W., & Kang, J. (2009). Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents. Scientometrics, 81(3), 811–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Piaget, J. (2002). Epistemology in the human sciences (W. Zheng, Trans.). Central Compilation Publishing House. [Google Scholar]
  32. Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Porter, A. L., Roessner, D. J., & Heberger, A. E. (2008). How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research Evaluation, 17(4), 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pratt, A. D. (2010). A measure of class concentration in bibliometrics. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 28(5), 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2009). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82, 263–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to lmitiation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rodríguez, J. M. (2017). Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in citation and reference dimensions: Knowledge importation and exportation taxonomy of journals. Scientometrics, 110(2), 617–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2002). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Strategy Unit Working Paper Series; Harvard Business School. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Taşkın, N., & Kılıç Çakmak, E. (2022). Effects of gamification on behavioral and cognitive engagement of students in the online learning environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(17), 3334–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Teichler, U., & Sadlak, J. (2000). Higher education research: Its relationship to policy and practice. IAU Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Truc, A., Santerre, O., Gingras, Y., & Claveau, F. (2023). The interdisciplinarity of economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 47(6), 1057–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on open science. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [Google Scholar]
  46. Urata, H. (1990). Information flows among academic disciplines in Japan. Scientometrics, 18(3), 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, X. (2010). Higher education as a field of study in china: Defining knowledge and curriculum structure. Routledge Falmer. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, Y., Hu, R., & Liu, M. (2017). The geotemporal demographics of academic journals from 1950 to 2013 according to Ulrich’s database. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 655–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Whitaker, S. (1986). Flow in porous media I: A theoretical derivation of Darcy’s law. Transport in Porous Media, 1, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, J., & Liu, Z. (2022). The effect of citation behaviour on knowledge diffusion and intellectual structure. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yue, Z. H., & Xu, H. Y. (2019). 学科引证网络知识扩散特征研究 [Characteristics of knowledge diffusion in disciplinary citation network]. 情报学报 [Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information], 38(1), 1–12. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zaballos, A., Briones, A., Massa, A., Centelles, P., & Caballero, V. (2020). A smart campus’ digital twin for sustainable comfort monitoring. Sustainability, 12(21), 9196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, F., Liu, G., & Wu, Y. (2020). Formation mechanism of knowledge stickiness in the collaborative innovation of industry-university-research. Tehnicki vjesnik-Technical Gazette, 27(5), 1452–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Glänzel, W. (2016). Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(5), 1257–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhou, H., Guns, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2023). Towards indicating interdisciplinarity: Characterizing interdisciplinary knowledge flow. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(11), 1325–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhu, Y., & Yan, E. (2015). Dynamic subfield analysis of disciplines: An examination of the trading impact and knowledge diffusion patterns of computer science. Scientometrics, 104(1), 335–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhuge, H. (2002). A knowledge flow model for peer-to-peer team knowledge sharing and management. Expert Systems with Applications, 23(1), 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhuge, H., Guo, W., & Li, X. (2007). The potential energy of knowledge flow. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 19(15), 2067–2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00221 g001
Figure 1. Interdisciplinary knowledge flow structure.
Figure 1. Interdisciplinary knowledge flow structure.
Education 15 00221 g001
Education 15 00221 g002
Figure 2. Domain overlay map of knowledge absorption in HER.
Figure 2. Domain overlay map of knowledge absorption in HER.
Education 15 00221 g002
Education 15 00221 g003
Figure 3. Domain overlay map of knowledge diffusion in HER.
Figure 3. Domain overlay map of knowledge diffusion in HER.
Education 15 00221 g003
Education 15 00221 g004
Figure 4. Knowledge Potential Difference, Knowledge Distance, and Knowledge Slope.
Figure 4. Knowledge Potential Difference, Knowledge Distance, and Knowledge Slope.
Education 15 00221 g004
Education 15 00221 g005
Figure 5. High-Frequency Keywords in HER.
Figure 5. High-Frequency Keywords in HER.
Education 15 00221 g005
Table 1. Ranking of the Bottom 10 Keywords of Knowledge Flow in HER.
Table 1. Ranking of the Bottom 10 Keywords of Knowledge Flow in HER.
Knowledge AbsorptionKnowledge Diffusion
AcousticsMaterials Science Paper Wood
Anatomy MorphologyMedieval Renaissance Studies
Materials Science, Characterization and TestingPolymer Science
Materials Science, Coatings and FilmsAllergy
Meteorology Atmospheric SciencesEngineering Petroleum
MineralogyMycology
OrnithologyPhysics Nuclear
Quantum Science and TechnologyQuantum Science Technology
Table 2. Knowledge Absorption in HER (Top 30).
Table 2. Knowledge Absorption in HER (Top 30).
WOS CategoryN302,111
Eduation and Educational Research114,11537.77%
Management16,2015.36%
Sociology11,3783.77%
Psychology, Educational111,2133.71%
Economics10,3643.43%
Psychology, Applied95603.16%
Business89702.97
Psychology, Multidisciplinary 75812.51%
Green and Sustainable Science and Technology73302.43%
Psychology, Social59871.98%
Environmental Sciences56331.86%
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary55281.83%
Education, Scientific Disciplines50051.66%
Environmental Studies38801.28%
Information Science and Library Science33321.10%
Political Science32711.08%
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications31681.05%
Engineering, Environmental31121.03%
Health Care Sciences and Services28270.94%
Linguistics27400.91%
Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods22990.76%
Multidisciplinary Sciences20580.68%
Public, Environmental and Occupational Health20160.67%
Psychology20100.67%
Psychology, Experimental19550.65%
Communication18720.62%
Geography17900.59%
Statistics and Probability17260.57%
Industrial Relations and Labor17080.57%
Public Administration16540.55%
Table 3. Knowledge Diffusion in HER (Top 30).
Table 3. Knowledge Diffusion in HER (Top 30).
WOS CategoryN124,536
Education and Educational Research 67,49522.42%
Education Scientific Disciplines 71082.36%
Management61422.04%
Green Sustainable Science Technology46611.55%
Environmental Sciences43611.45%
Psychology Multidisciplinary42041.40%
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary38611.28%
Environmental Studies37661.25%
Psychology Educational34651.15%
Sociology33111.10%
Business32281.07%
Information Science Library Science31751.05%
Linguistics28680.95%
Computer Science Interdisciplinary Applications25210.84%
Economics22940.76%
Psychology Applied22800.76%
Public Environmental Occupational Health20900.69%
Language Linguistics20470.68%
Nursing18930.63%
Psychology Social15830.53%
Engineering Multidisciplinary15400.51%
Health Care Sciences Services15360.51%
Multidisciplinary Sciences15120.50%
Computer Science Information Systems14490.48%
Communication12280.41%
Hospitality Leisure Sport Tourism12020.40%
Geography11530.38%
Political Science11230.38%
Public Administration10360.34%
Social Work9350.31%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, W.; Pan, L.; Neary, S.; Moore, N. Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in International Higher Education Research: Characteristics and Mechanisms. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020221

AMA Style

Jia W, Pan L, Neary S, Moore N. Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in International Higher Education Research: Characteristics and Mechanisms. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(2):221. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020221

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Wenxiu, Li Pan, Siobhan Neary, and Nicki Moore. 2025. "Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in International Higher Education Research: Characteristics and Mechanisms" Education Sciences 15, no. 2: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020221

APA Style

Jia, W., Pan, L., Neary, S., & Moore, N. (2025). Interdisciplinary Knowledge Flow in International Higher Education Research: Characteristics and Mechanisms. Education Sciences, 15(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020221

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop