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.

1. [1] Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University, “Disaster Prevention Research Institute.” https://www.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/ [Accessed April 29, 2024]
2. [2] Texas A&M University College of Architecture, “Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center (HRRC).” https://www.arch.tamu.edu/impact/centers-institutes-outreach/hrrc/ [Accessed April 29, 2024]
3. [3] University College London, “Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction.” https://www.ucl.ac.uk/risk-disaster-reduction/ucl-irdr [Accessed May 22, 2024]
4. [4] International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University, “IRIDeS—Tohoku University.” https://irides.tohoku.ac.jp/eng/ [Accessed April 29, 2024]
5. [5] Institute of Disaster Management and Reconstruction, Sichuan University, “IDMR.” https://idmr.scu.edu.cn/en/ [Accessed April 29, 2024]
6. [6] Cabinet Office of Japan, “‘So-Go-Chi’ no kihonteki kangaekata oyobi senryakuteki ni suishin suru housaku chuukan torimatome (Interim report on the basic concept of ‘Convergence Knowledge’ and strategic measures to promote it),” March 17, 2022 (in Japanese). https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/sogochi/honbun_print.pdf [Accessed October 16, 2024]
7. [7] E. Ishihara, “‘So-Go-Chi’ de shakai no senzaiteki na kitai wo hakken suru (Discovering society’s latent expectations through ‘Convergence Knowledge’),” J. of Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration, Vol.19, No.2, pp. 31-33, 2023 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.1241/sangakukanjournal.19.2_31
8. [8] IRIDeS, “51 Approaches to disaster science: Lessons from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake,” Tohoku University Press, 2021 (in Japanese).
9. [9] S. Koshimura, N. Mori, N. Chikasada, K. Udo, J. Ninomiya, Y. Okumura, and E. Mas, “Digital twin paradigm for coastal disaster risk reduction and resilience,” K. Goda, R. D. Risi, A. R. Gusman, and I. Nistor (Eds.), “Probabilistic tsunami hazard and risk analysis towards disaster risk reduction and resilience,” pp. 543-559, Elsevier, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-18987-6.00024-5
10. [10] N. Kosaka, S. Koshimura, K. Terada, Y. Murashima, T. Kura, A. Koyama, and H. Matsubara, “Decision-making support utilizing real-time tsunami inundation and damage forecast,” Int. J. of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol.94, Article No.103807, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103807
11. [11] N. Kosaka, S. Moriguchi, A. Shibayama, T. Kura, N. Shigematsu, K. Okumura, E. Mas, M. Okumura, S. Koshimura, K. Terada, A. Fujino, H. Matsubara, and M. Hisada, “A study on digital model for decision-making in crisis response,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.19, No.3, pp. 489-500, 2024. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2024.p0489
12. [12] M. Takahashi, S. Tanaka, R. Kimura, M. Umitsu, R. Tabuchi, T. Kuroda, M. Ando, and F. Kimata, “Restoration after the Sumatra Earthquake Tsunami in Banda Aceh: Based on the results of interdisciplinary research by Nagoya University,” J. of Natural Disaster Science, Vol.29, No.2 pp. 53-62, 2007. https://doi.org/10.2328/jnds.29.53
13. [13] A. Hirakawa, “Jishin tsunami ni kansuru rekisi kenkyu to saigai kagaku kenkyu no arikata (Historical research on earthquakes and tsunamis and the way disaster science research is),” Gakujutsu no Doukou, Vol.19, No.9, pp. 34-37, 2014 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.5363/tits.19.9_34
14. [14] T. Takara, “Promotion of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration in disaster risk reduction,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.13, No.7, pp. 1193-1198, 2018. http/doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2018.p1193
15. [15] T. Furuya and N. Hirata, “Interdisciplinary and industry-academia collaboration research for enhancing social resilience to natural disasters in the Tokyo metropolitan area—DEKATSU Activity—,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.16, No.4, pp. 676-683, 2021. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2021.p0676
16. [16] L. Peek and S. Guikema, “Interdisciplinary theory, methods, and approaches for hazards and disaster research: An introduction to the special issue,” Risk Analysis, Vol.41, No.7, pp. 1047-1058, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13777
17. [17] A. Mostafavi and N. E. Ganapati, “Toward convergence disaster research: Building integrative theories using simulation,” Risk Analysis, Vol.41, No.7, pp. 1078-1086, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13303
18. [18] J. M. Gilligan, “Expertise across disciplines: Establishing common ground in interdisciplinary disaster research teams,” Risk Analysis, Vol.41, No.7, pp. 1171-1177, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13407
19. [19] A. Behrendt, K. Lukasiewicz, D. Seaberg, and J. Zhuang, “Trends in multidisciplinary hazard and disaster research: A 1982–2017 Case Study,” Risk Analysis, Vol.41, No.7, pp. 1195-1203, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13308
20. [20] S. Oki, “Bunkei to rikei ha naze wakaretanoka (Why has the humanities and sciences diverged),” Seikaisha, 2018 (in Japanese).
21. [21] J. Z. Muller, “Hakarisugi: Naze pafoomansu hyouka ha shippai surunoka (The tyranny of metrics),” Misuzu Shobo, 2019 (in Japanese).
22. [22] R. Shineha, “Sekinin aru kagakugijutu gabanansu gairon (Introduction to responsible science and technology governance),” Nakanishiya, 2020 (in Japanese).
23. [23] D. B. Pedersen, J. F. Grønvad, and R. Hvidtfeldt, “Methods for mapping the impact of social sciences and humanities—A literature review,” Research Evaluation, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 4-21, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz033
24. [24] M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, and H. D. Daniel (Eds.), “Research Assessment in the Humanities: towards criteria and procedures,” Springer, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4
25. [25] G. Siversten, “Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities,” Scientometrics, Vol.107, pp. 357-368, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1845-1
26. [26] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, “Jinbungaku shakaikagaku no kenkyuu seika no monitaringu shihyo ni tsuitte: Torimatome (Monitoring indicators of research outcomes in the humanities and social sciences: Summary),” 2023 (in Japanese). https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20230214-mxt_sinkou01-000027608_000.pdf [Accessed October 16, 2024]
27. [27] R. Shineha, “Research evaluation of arts and humanity and social science: Current contexts and the hereafter, ” Japanese J. for Science, Technology & Society, Vol.26, pp. 1-39, 2017 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.32189/jjsts.26.0_1
28. [28] E. Reale, D. Avramov, K. Canhial, C. Donovan, R. Flecha, P. Holm, C. Larkin, B. Lepori, J. Mosoni-Fried, E. Oliver, E. Primeri, L. Puigvert, A. Scharnhorst, A. Schubert, M. Soler, S. Soòs, T. Sordé, C. Travis, and R. Van Horik, “A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research,” Research Evaluation, Vol.27, No.4, pp. 298-308, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025
29. [29] T. Hayashi, Y. Sasaki, and H. Numajiri, “Kenkyu hyouka kaikaku to oopun saiensu: Kokusaiteki shinten to nihon no joukyou (Research assessment reform and open science: Growing global initiatives and Japan),” The J. of Information Science and Technology, Vol.73, No.1, pp. 26-31, 2023 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.18919/jkg.73.1_26
30. [30] S. Inaba, “Shakaigaku nyuumon: ‘Tagenka suru jidai’ wo dou toraeruka (Introduction to sociology: How to understand the ‘age of pluralism’)” NHK Books, 2016 (in Japanese).
31. [31] K. Yamori, “Qualitative analyses of quantitative data obtained by questionnaire survey,” Japanese J. of Qualitative Psychology, Vol.14, Issue 1, pp. 166-181, 2015 (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.24525/jaqp.14.1_166
32. [32] Y. Sato, “Shitsuteki deeta bunsekihou: Genri, houhou, jissen (Qualitative data analysis methods: Principles, methods, and practice), Shinyosha, 2022 (in Japanese).