Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42840938›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2026

A conceptual methodological approach for addressing complex interdisciplinary challenges.

Ruth M Morgan, Emma Levin, Rowan Haslam, Christina Ballinger, Maurice Biriotti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruth M MorganArista Institute, UCL, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4146-654X
Emma LevinArista Institute, UCL, London, UK.
Rowan HaslamArista Institute, UCL, London, UK.
Christina BallingerArista Institute, UCL, London, UK.
Maurice BiriottiArista Institute, UCL, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complex challenges are multi-faceted and, therefore, require the input of knowledge and expertise from different disciplines. However, the prevailing structures of academic institutions tend to be based on specialized disciplinary knowledge and expertise, rather than cross-disciplinary synthesis of the insights from disciplinary knowledge and expertise, reflexivity and holistic approaches. As such, the existing model for generating 'excellence' in novel and specialized research does not lend itself to the synthesis of existing disciplinary insight, where the long-term goals and short-term metrics of success are different. There is, therefore, a need to create opportunities for a new and complementary conceptual methodological approach to address persistent complex challenges. This paper proposes two tools designed to facilitate thinking about what types of disciplinary knowledge and expertise can be relevant to tackling complex challenges, and to identify what questions might spark productive and unconventional dialogues across disciplines that result in interdisciplinary insight. Approaching complex challenges using these tools addresses the need to deal with different facets of the challenge in concert, and the need for effective juxtaposition and combination of knowledge and expertise from multiple disciplines to develop interdisciplinary insight and approaches to craft questions and address the challenge.

Indexed as

global challengesintegrative noveltyinterdisciplinarypolicyresearch question

Identifiers

PMID42840938
PMCPMC13641920

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.