ChapterPDF Available

Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations: Characteristics - impeding and enabling factors - implications

Authors:
  • University of St.Gallen and University of Zurich

Abstract

Research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary due to the inherent complexity of the phenomena under study. Interdisciplinarity is "en vogue" - associated with creative, progressive scientific research likely to lead to applicable results. Complex problems cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines and thus, require individuals and groups to engage in interdisciplinary inquiry and collaboration to generate knowledge that is more than the sum of its parts. And while European scholars are working on mapping the contours of "the disciplines" in the course of the Bologna process to further brachiate the tree of knowledge, KLEIN states in her recent landmark book "Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures" that the concept of "the disciplines" has increasingly taken on the stance of an "inconvenient fiction." After introducing the topic and its relevance, the chapter presents a definition of interdisciplinary research as well as selected characteristics of interdisciplinary research collaboration (section II). After that, impeding (obstacles) as well as on enabling factors regarding interdisciplinary research collaboration will be submitted (section III) and some implications will be outlined (section IV). Finally, ideas for (future) research on interdisciplinary research collaboration will be sketched out (section V).
SABINE HOIDN
141
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
Characteristics – Impeding and Enabling Factors – Implications
SABINE HOIDN
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ...................................................................................... 142
II. Characteristics of Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations ....143
III. Impeding and Enabling Factors of Interdisciplinary Research
Collaborations .................................................................................. 145
A) Impeding Factors .........................................................................145
B) Enabling Factors ..........................................................................149
IV. Implications ...................................................................................... 151
A) Towards Integration: Customary Rules....................................... 152
B) Towards Integration: Collaborative Competencies and
Leadership ................................................................................... 154
V. Ideas for (Future) Research ............................................................156
The interdisciplinary approach is becoming one of the prominent characteristics
of [science] and represents a synthesizing trend which focuses the specialized
research techniques on problems common to a number of separate disciplines.
Such cooperative research has to overcome serious obstacles when operating
within the existing departmentalized framework of the universities. It appears
that real progress in this direction will be made in institutions which are orga-
nized on a permanent and frankly cooperative basis. Psychologically, interdis-
ciplinary research requires not only abstract, theoretical intelligence (and, fre-
quently, manipulative skill) but also ‚social intelligence.’ Cooperative work is a
social art and has to be practiced with patience.1
1 BROZEK JOSEF/KEYS ANCEL, General aspects of interdisciplinary research in experi-
mental biology, Science 100/1944, p. 512.
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
142
I. Introduction
Research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary due to the inherent com-
plexity of the phenomena under study. Interdisciplinarity is „en vogue“
associated with creative, progressive scientific research likely to lead to ap-
plicable results. Complex problems cross the boundaries of traditional disci-
plines and thus, require individuals and groups to engage in interdisciplinary
inquiry and collaboration to generate knowledge that is more than the sum of
its parts. FIORE submits that „to truly understand complex phenomena, we
must transcend disciplinary boundaries.“2 The following intrinsic and extrin-
sic drivers are considered to propel the development of interdisciplinary re-
search collaborations (IRC) and thus, interdisciplinary research (IDR):
the inherent complexity of nature and society,
the desire to explore problems and questions that are not confined to a
single discipline,
the need to solve societal problems,
the power of new technologies.3
And while European scholars are working on mapping the contours of „the
disciplines“ in the course of the Bologna process to further brachiate the tree
of knowledge, KLEIN states in her recent landmark book „Creating Interdis-
ciplinary Campus Cultures“ that the concept of „the disciplines“ has increas-
ingly taken on the stance of an „inconvenient fiction.“4 In the twenty-first
century „a single discipline alone cannot cope with the challenges of complex
societies, competitive knowledge-based economies or pluralistic democra-
cies.“5 In this regard, science and technology, social sciences and humanities
are all crucial disciplines addressing the needs of a knowledge economy and
society. However, IDR provides new opportunities to pursue challenging
intellectual questions, address complex issues, solve problems that are too
broad for a single approach and thus, counterbalance specialization and ad-
vance fundamental understanding and practice. IDR facilitates the integration
2 FIORE STEPHEN M., Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can
inform team science, Small Group Research 39/2008, p. 258.
3 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES/NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING/INSTITUTE
OF MEDICINE [NATIONAL ACADEMIES], Facilitating interdisciplinary research, Wash-
ington D.C. 2005, pp. 2 and 40.
4 KLEIN JULIE THOMPSON, Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures. A model for
strength and sustainability, San Francisco 2010, p. XV.
5 BOŽIĆ SAŠA/POHORYLES RONALD J., Why bother with interdisciplinarity in the social
and human sciences?, Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research
22(2)/2009, p. 144.
SABINE HOIDN
143
of disciplinary theories, concepts, methods and tools to advance a particular
purpose. Similar to a painter mixing one or more of the basic colors to make a
new color, IDR places a distinctive emphasis on the integration of theories
and methods from different disciplines like political science, philosophy,
sociology, pedagogy, economics, law or medicine, for example.6 KLEIN stres-
ses that interdisciplinarity is a major variable in the new academy of the twen-
ty-first century.7
In the following I will introduce a definition of IDR as well as selected cha-
racteristics of IRC (section II). After that I will focus on impeding (obstacles)
as well as on enabling factors regarding IRC (section III) and outline some
implications (section IV). Finally, I will sketch out ideas for (future) research
on IRC (section V).
II. Characteristics of Interdisciplinary Research
Collaborations
In general, the term „interdisciplinary“ is used as an umbrella term to indicate
that a research team synthesizes ideas and methods from more than one disci-
pline. The American NATIONAL ACADEMIES define interdisciplinary research
as
a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates informa-
tion, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/ or theories
from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to
advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose
solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of re-
search practice.8
This definition highlights important characteristics of IDR: The mode of re-
search (teams or individuals), the centrality of integration, the embeddedness
of disciplines as knowledge sources and the aim of advancing theoretical and
practical understanding. JACOBS/FRICKEL point out that „the transformative
promise of interdisciplinarity lies in its capacity to interpenetrate disciplines,
changing what they do by providing communicative forms and channels for
renegotiating disciplinary boundaries and generating new epistemic stand-
6 CHENG JOSEPH L.C./HENISZ WITOLD J./ROTH KENDALL/SWAMINATHAN ANAND, From
the editors: Advancing interdisciplinary research in the field of international business:
Prospects, issues and challenges, Journal of International Business Studies 40/2009, p.
1071.
7 KLEIN 2010, p. 35.
8 NATIONAL ACADEMIES, p. 188.
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
144
ards.“9 IDR creates an additional complexity as it transgresses boundaries
between scientific disciplines and between science and practice. IDR tackles
more broadly defined goals as compared to disciplinary research to under-
stand complex problems with an explicit reference to practical relevance and
societal value. Its problem-driven nature strives to leverage cognitive re-
sources, achieve cognitive integration and strongly depends on situational
factors and circumstances (e.g. institutional structure, funding) largely deter-
mining success or failure.10 IDR has both, potential for scientific discovery
and the capacity to target societal problems. According to FIORE „interdiscip-
linary research is team research,“ that is, scholars from different disciplines
jointly produce IDR.11 Consequently, interdisciplinarity is a team activity – a
process coordinated by a scientific team. Teams are characterized by substan-
tial interdependence12 along with clearly articulated goals and role differenti-
ation.13 Furthermore, interdisciplinary teams are characterized by hetero-
geneity and complexity appearing to be a double-edged sword: Through the
heterogeneous composition interdisciplinary teams are able to generate more
differentiated views drawing from a wide range of expert knowledge sources.
Hence, they can create a more holistic picture of the problem at hand. How-
ever, heterogeneity also poses major challenges for IRC as it leads to a
greater chance of disagreement and conflict destabilizing the team and thus,
undermining the interdisciplinary research process.14 FIORE suggests that „by
reframing interdisciplinarity as a process of teamwork to be mastered, that is,
as an understanding of the teamwork activities necessary for success, and not
as a product that emerges, we may be able to make the achievement of inter-
disciplinarity more tractable.“15 Consequently, difficulties can arise rather
from the interaction of knowledge experts (e.g. due to conflicting epistemolo-
gies, values) than from the content itself.
9 JACOBS JERRY A./FRICKEL SCOTT, Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment, Annual
Review of Sociology 35/2009, p. 57.
10 HOLLAENDER KIRSTEN/LOIBL MARIE CÉLINE/WILTS ARNOLD, Management, in: Hirsch
Hadorn Gertrude/Hoffmann-Riem Holger/Biber-Klemm Susette/Grossenbacher-
Mansuy Walter/Joye Dominique/Pohl Christian/Wiesmann Urs/Zemp Elisabeth
(Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research, Dordrecht, London 2008, pp. 386-
387.
11 FIORE, p. 253.
12 Team interdependence means that „group members jointly diagnose, problem solve,
and collaborate to complete a task“ (SAAVEDRA RICHARD/EARLEY P. CHRISTOPHER/
VAN DYNE LINN, Complex interdependence in task-performing groups, Journal of
Applied Psychology 78/1993, p. 63).
13 FIORE, p. 263.
14 HOLLAENDER ET AL., pp. 385-386.
15 FIORE, p. 256.
SABINE HOIDN
145
Against this background, the following section will outline selected impeding
and enabling factors with a special focus on social-interactive factors challen-
ging or facilitating IRC.
III. Impeding and Enabling Factors of
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
A) Impeding Factors
Interdisciplinary researchers encounter a host of daunting obstacles in the
form of cultural barriers like differences in epistemologies, styles of thought,
research traditions, professional terminologies and language as well as re-
search techniques. Thus, difficulties to bridge divisions within the social sci-
ences or humanities and between the natural sciences and other disciplines are
omnipotent in research. Current research highlights the following impeding
factors regarding IRC:
(1) LÉLÉ/NORGAARD identify barriers to interdisciplinarity that scholars
from different disciplines are likely to encounter when working together on a
research project:16
Values being embedded at all stages of the interdisciplinary inquiry bear
the risk that scientists are talking past each other because they are not ex-
plicating their normative priorities and concerns. However, at the same
time, „collective judgment“ is required and some scientists are expected to
make the necessary conceptual adjustments (e.g. choice of questions, re-
search design);
Differences in epistemology17 and hence, beliefs and perceptions regarding
methodology and truth, for instance (e.g. humanities vs. the sciences).
16 LÉLÉ SHARACHCHANDRA/NORGAARD RICHARD B., Practicing interdisciplinarity, Bio-
Science 55(11)/2005, p. 968.
17 Academics hold a variety of beliefs and perceptions about epistemic cultures of their
own field and those of other fields. Differences in epistemological styles appear with
regard to theory, that is, whether the styles are grounded in knowledge for know-
ledge’s sake or knowledge for the sake of social change, and methodology (e.g. reduc-
tivism vs. „verstehen“). LAMONT differentiates four epistemological styles, meaning
„preferences for particular ways of understanding how to build knowledge, as well as
beliefs in the very possibility of proving those theories“ (LAMONT, p. 54): Compre-
hensive: values „verstehen,“ attention to details and contextual specificity; Construc-
tivist: values reflexivity, different perspectives; Positivist: favors generalizability and
hypothesis testing; Utilitarian: values the production of instrumental knowledge
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
146
Each field has established different approaches to producing and evalua-
ting knowledge and research indicating that research networks are shaped
by the diversity of and the distance between the researchers’ disciplines;
Different theories and assumptions according to one’s school of thought
and the need to establish a common means of understanding, to synthesize
theories and/or to make joint choices according to the particular context;
The way society interacts with and organizes academia, that means, forces
shaping the importance of a certain discipline (e.g. the differences in the
manner in which society treats the social and natural sciences, the higher
standing of economics vis-à-vis other social science disciplines).
(2) To solve complex problems researchers need to create shared understan-
dings and develop shared meaning across different scientific disciplines.
Hence, open discourse is necessary to clarify and analyze definitions and ter-
minology to improve understanding. Moreover, in the course of deliberations
researchers can take advantage of the different theoretical frameworks as well
as of tacit knowledge and experiences of team members to come to a quali-
fied judgment depending on the problem or task at hand. Finding common
grounds requires time and effort. Researchers have to negotiate common
ground they „must each discover what concepts they have in common with
the others and agree on the terms they will use to denote these concepts.“ To
correctly understand each other’s contributions, a grounding process is nee-
ded causing high transaction costs of interdisciplinarity ‚grounding’ in scien-
tific research projects for the following reasons:18
Researchers have different disciplinary backgrounds and therefore, need to
negotiate common ground to bridge the epistemological gap.
Costs increase with the number of researchers and disciplines involved as
each researcher needs to negotiate common ground with all the other re-
searchers.
Further factors affecting the transaction costs of grounding are: (a) Objec-
tives of the interdisciplinary research project (e.g. targeted level of integra-
tion); (b) ‚Conceptual distance’ between disciplines and researchers’ in-
(LAMONT MICHÈLE, How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic
judgment, Cambridge 2009, pp. 57-58 and 174-176).
18 BROMME RAINER, Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive inter-
disciplinarity, in: Weingart Peter/Stehr Nico (Eds.), Practicing interdisciplinarity, To-
ronto, Canada 2000, pp. 115-133 and GALISON PETER, Image and logic: A material
culture of microphysics, Chicago 1997. See also BEERS PIETER J./BOTS PIETER W.G.,
Eliciting conceptual models to support interdisciplinary research, Journal of Informa-
tion Science 25/2009, pp. 262-263.
SABINE HOIDN
147
interdisciplinary experience and openness; (c) Errors stemming from the
use of different terminologies resulting in (undetected) misunderstandings.
(3) Communication problems are extricably interwoven with problems of
(disciplinary) language. Gaps in communication occurring between different
cultures like physical sciences, biology, medicine, economics, sociology and
pedagogy are among the most pressing impeding factors regarding IRC. Hen-
ce, interdisciplinary teams have to create a context that constrains and chan-
nels differences, and leaves room for negotiating common ground as discipli-
nes use the same words with different meanings, for instance. Thus, the „illu-
sion of consensus appearing when the team agrees on common terms to
avoid semantic difficulties and, consequently, arrives at premature solutions
and simplistic conclusions for the sake of amity, can be reduced. In the face
of the absence of a shared understanding the team would risk to reduce the
number of creative problem-solving conflicts leading to misunderstandings
and therefore, to high transaction costs. Moreover, groups could be affected
by „groupthink“ likely to lead to limited alternatives and false decisions due
to self-censorship or pressure on dissenters, for example.19 „Difference, ten-
sion, and conflict emerge as important parts of integrative process“ and are
part of the character of interdisciplinary knowledge underscoring the import-
ance of communication, e.g. translation, negotiation and conflict-solving.20
(4) IRC can also create territorial and status conflicts reflecting external hier-
archies („pecking order“) and disciplinary chauvinism („status games among
disciplines“), for example. These barriers can be rooted in professional rank,
institutional affiliation, in a prestigious person or discipline (reputation), in
professional style (habitus) or in an individual with „the greatest clout or
loudest voiceattempting to dominate the team. Therefore, the theory of sta-
tus concordance suggests high levels of concordance regarding ranks among
members’ age (seniority), gender, racial identity, academic rank, highest de-
gree obtained and discipline, for example. However, studies indicate that
higher-status individuals tend to give less communication that is judged „ir-
relevant“ by team members, receive more communication and are better
liked.21 Furthermore, senior faculty can act as a knowledge base and is more
likely to capture attention within the scientific community and thus, presum-
ably can attract funds as well as political and business players to the advan-
tage of the network and its members. In addition, senior researchers tend to be
19 JANIS, IRVING L., Victims of groupthink, New York 1972.
20 KLEIN JULIE THOMPSON, Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and inter-
disciplinarities, Charlottesville/London 1996, p. 216.
21 See also KLEIN JULIE THOMPSON, Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice,
Detroit MI 1990, p. 142, see also KLEIN 1990, p. 221.
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
148
freer to take risks and are no longer concerned with tenure or promotion re-
quirements.22
Interdisciplinary research collaboration requires not only cognitive but also
social competencies. However, many researchers lack training in (intercul-
tural) communication and (interdisciplinary) team work (e.g. group dynamics,
leadership, problem-solving, conflict resolution) and thus, often don’t have
the knowledge, skills and attitude essential for reciprocal intercultural learn-
ing and successful IDR and management. Negative comments made about
other team members „often concern how they interact with others, handle dif-
ferences of opinion and contribute to shared goals.“23 As IDR is typically
collaborative involving people of disparate backgrounds, it may take extra
time for building consensus, developing a shared cognitive framework, defin-
ing joint objectives, establishing commonality, forming working relationships
and enabling intercultural learning with regard to new methods, languages
and cultures. As a consequence, researchers often try to avoid to work with
colleagues from different disciplines, and instead concentrate on „pure re-
search“ in their single disciplines to further enhance their knowledge and
skills in this discipline. Also, due to disciplinary academic career affordances,
junior faculty is often not willing to risk time out of the disciplinary main-
stream. IDR is usually incompatible with academic incentive and reward
structures. To conclude with a bird’s-eye view, RHOTEN names the following
main two reasons for difficulties in practicing IDR: „First, within the culture
of science that is, how researchers conduct themselves individually and
socially interdisciplinarity goes against the grain of everything disciplinary
researchers have been taught to do and to protect. Second, it flies in the face
of virtually every bureaucratic structure in the university, most obviously the
departmental system which confers upon researchers their funding, reputa-
tion, tenure and status.“24
From the outlined characteristics and impeding factors above it becomes clear
that up to date the social and intellectual processes necessary for successful
IRC are multi-faceted, not fully understood and pending. However, what
could make a productive environment for IRC? This question will be tackled
in the next section outlining enabling factors.
22 See also KLEIN 1990, pp. 127-128.
23 LAMONT, p. 115.
24 RHOTEN DIANA, Lead, follow, get out of the way: Sidestepping the barriers to effec-
tive practice of interdisciplinarity, The Hybrid Vigor Institute 2001, p. 7, retrieved
February 28, 2010, from <www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-
2001.04. 30.pdf.>
SABINE HOIDN
149
B) Enabling Factors
What does it take for interdisciplinary teams to flourish? It is suggested that
the „success of an interdisciplinary group pivots on its capacity to amalga-
mate theories, concepts, methods, techniques rooted in distinct disciplinary
traditions to leverage understanding.“25 According to STOKOLS ET AL. the
following conditions produce collaborative readiness for team science: insti-
tutional support, the breadth of disciplines, departments and institutions en-
compassed by a center, the degree to which team members have worked to-
gether on prior projects, the proximal location of offices and laboratories and
the availability of electronic linkages.26 STOKOLS/TAYLOR/HALL/MOSER also
underline the need for strong leaders that could motivate and manage the
work, engage in team building and execute conflict management competen-
cies when necessary.27
DINGFELDER introduces three major ingredients for success while rich team
communication is considered to be among the most important indicators of
success: (1) Institutional support encompassing funding mechanisms that
encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and support structures in resear-
chers’ home universities enabling interaction (e.g. space for local groups,
cyber infrastructure); (2) Visionary leaders fluent in different research langu-
ages keeping scientists with different backgrounds on the same page to bridge
disciplines and integrate knowledge to a new coherent whole; (3) Collabor-
ative members who are willing and prepared to work with members of differ-
ent scientific communities.28
Informed by a two-year research project in UK higher education institutions
WOODFIELD/KENNIE highlight guidelines important to develop team working
in top management teams in a higher education context. Their findings indi-
cate an increased focus on team formation, inducting new members, facilita-
ting effective teamwork and joint or collective agenda setting. Developing a
collective agenda, for instance, can help to build commitment to the collective
25 LAMONT MICHÈLE/BOIX MANSILLA VÉRONICA/HUUTONIEMI KATRI, Fostering success-
ful interdisciplinarity through shared cognitive platforms, Internal paper, Cambridge
2007, p. 2.
26 STOKOLS ET AL., Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine Tob Res, 5 Suppl 1,
2003, pp. 21-39.
27 STOKOLS DANIEL/TAYLOR BRANDIE/HALL KARA/MOSER RICHARD, The science of
team science: An overview of the field, Paper presented at the National Cancer Insti-
tute Conference on the Science of Team Evaluation, Bethesda, MD 2006. Presentation
slides retrieved February 24, 2010, from <http://dccps.nci.nih.gov/brp/scienceteam/
team_science_overview_stokols_etal.pdf>.
28 DINGFELDER SADIE F., Team science, Monitor on Psychology 2007, retrieved Feb-
ruary 24, 2010, from <www.apa.org/monitor/jan07/team.aspx>.
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
150
vision, to the defined shared goals and trust among team members. Relation-
ship building can be fostered through supporting informal interaction and by
making time for members to gain experience of working together on team
issues. Moreover, establishing team behaviors, team roles and a more or less
explicit set of behavioral ground rules can help the team to operate more ef-
fectively and constructively. In addition, balancing power and influence of
the team leader with contributions from those within the team with high le-
vels of expertise in specific areas is considered to be important too. Other
relevant factors are the availability of location and resources, a focus on col-
lective performance management processes and evaluation techniques and the
fostering of team development. The latter involves the development of team
working skills including processes and activities that encourage informal
interaction, networking and social bonding between team members. Finally, a
supportive institutional context helps the team to focus their work on the im-
portant thinking and strategic-level influencing work.29
Facilitating character traits and skills associated with interdisciplinary indi-
viduals are reliability, flexibility, patience, resilience, sensitivity for others,
risk-taking, a thick skin, and a preference for diversity and new social roles,
for example. RHOTEN reports, that researchers with a pre-existing, positive
attitude toward other disciplines and prior interdisciplinary exposure tend to
be more open to work with other disciplines and can act as „bridges“ or „ties“
between individuals and groups of „unlike“ disciplines.30 Moreover, interdis-
ciplinary researchers must be able to differentiate, clarify, relate, compare,
contrast, analyze and synthesize, look at things from different perspectives
and know how to learn.31 They need team competencies viewed „as a collec-
tion of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that form the foundational
precursors to effective team interaction behaviors.“ Such competencies re-
quire generic, specialized as well as integrative knowledge and skills:32
Team-generic competencies like communications skills as well as team-
specific competencies depending on the specific team situations (e.g. know-
ledge of roles within the team). Moreover, one can differentiate between task-
generic competencies (e.g. exchanging information and planning) and task-
specific competencies (e.g. using appropriate methods).33
29 WOODFIELD STEVE/KENNIE TOM, Teamwork’ or ‚working as a team’? The theory and
practice of top team working in UK higher education, Higher Education Quarterly
62(4)/2008, pp. 397-415.
30 RHOTEN DIANA, A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for
interdisciplinary collaboration, San Francisco 2003, p. 18, retrieved February 24,
2010, <www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf>.
31 KLEIN 1990, p. 183.
32 KLEIN 1996, p. 237.
33 FIORE, p. 266 f.
SABINE HOIDN
151
Studies of leadership in expert teams emphasize the importance of competen-
cies regarding guidance of team interactions including maintaining an appro-
priate interaction climate as well as defining team goals, managing resources
and facilitating team learning by showing empowerment behaviors (e.g. inspi-
rational motivation, intellectual stimulation).34 The NATIONAL ACADEMIES
state that institutional commitment and research leadership, meaning leaders
with a clear vision and effective communication and team-building skills, can
catalyze the integration of disciplines. A team leader should bring together
potential research collaborators early in the process and work toward agree-
ment on key issues. Furthermore, he should ensure that each participant stri-
kes an appropriate balance between leading and following and between con-
tributing to and benefiting from the efforts of the team.35
IV. Implications
As IDR deals with complex problems and almost always appears to be an
interdisciplinary team effort, integration is the core methodology for success-
ful IDR. As the quote by BROZEK/KEYS at the beginning of this chapter sug-
gests, the following challenges are still existent: (1) The problem of the infra-
structure of the modern university (discipline-boundedness) as well as the
prestige of pure discipline within the disciplines hampering interaction among
different disciplines; (2) The problem of effective collaboration across disci-
plines.36 This chapter has focused on the second challenge highlighting the
importance of the interactional process. IRC requires complex intellectual and
social processes enabling information sharing and knowledge generation.37 In
order to facilitate the collaborative integrative process, KLEIN provides three
core principles of interdisciplinary communication: (1) maturing and deepen-
ing, that is working towards excellence in stages in the course of a recursive
and iterative process; (2) cooperation and interplay, that is, team members
34 FIORE, p. 270 f.
35 NATIONAL ACADEMIES, 2005.
36 BROZEK/KEYS, p. 252. See also ABOELELA SALLY W. ET AL., Defining interdiscipli-
nary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature, Health Services
Research 42/2007, pp. 329-346.
37 RHOTEN (2003, p. 18) defines these activities as follows: „The process of sharing
information requires collaborators to participate in the exchange of ideas and/or data
in order for each to learn new methods, acquire new theories, or develop new ap-
proaches. And, the process of creating knowledge requires collaborators to work to-
gether to construct concepts and integrate areas of expertise in order to generate new
theories, applications, or methods collectively.“
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
152
learn from each other utilizing feedback loops and reflection as they work
together; and (3) creativity, that is an iterative and dynamic process crafting
multiple elements into an organic whole.38 In an attempt to not only collect
the lower hanging (cognitive) fruits but to have a grasp of some of the higher
hanging (interactional) fruits, the implications outlined below can support the
integrative process with regard to interdisciplinary research collaborations.
A) Towards Integration: Customary Rules
With regard to the core principles of interdisciplinary communication, con-
sidering the notion that interdisciplinary team science is a highly interactional
undertaking and due to the fact that researchers often work together for the
first time, have only a limited (face-to-face) time together as well as limited
resources available, the development of rules for interdisciplinary collabor-
ation, agreed upon by all members, seems to be one crucial sphere to enable
maturing and deepening, cooperation and interplay as well as creativity and
thus, integration. An example can be drawn from LAMONT’s recent study of
multidisciplinary panels. LAMONT identifies a number of pragmatic custom-
ary rules39 that emerged from the requirements in the context of evaluative
processes. These established rules act as constraints on and regulators of be-
havior, but also function as justifications that create commitments.40 The
same could be true for IRC: In general, researchers with different disciplinary
backgrounds work together to conduct research around some shared interest
sponsored by research foundations interested in the outcome.41 In the course
38 KLEIN 1996, pp. 221-222.
39 „Customary“ because the rules are not formally spelled out and are instead created
and learned by researchers during their immersion in collective work. Respecting
these customary rules increases one’s credibility with colleagues and facilitates delib-
erations (LAMONT, pp. 111 and 157).
40 LAMONT conducted 81 open-ended and inductive interviews with highly regarded
experts who evaluate research proposals or are involved in this process (panelists,
panel chairs, program officers), and conducted observations of deliberations as well as
document analysis over a two-year period. Her findings suggest that evaluation is a
process that is deeply interactional and culturally embedded.
41 RHOTEN 2003 submits that a collaborative group which is supposed to have both
knowledge creating and information sharing activities, should consist of no more than
10 to 15 researchers (p. 45). Furthermore, rotating appointments, that is, flexible,
intermittent stays rather than long-term administrative mandates of an organization,
seem to proof successful as they „allow researchers to experience new communities of
practice and build extensive networks of practice that will satisfy their intellectual cu-
riosities without jeopardizing their professional responsibilities“ (p. 10).
SABINE HOIDN
153
of deliberations researchers are presenting their own expertise and back-
ground defining their identity in relation to that of other researchers. As re-
searchers get to know one another, they develop a group style continuing
interactions seem to contribute to the creation of a repertoire of customary
rules organizing members’ behavior and contributing to the group’s identity
formation. Group members engage in role negotiation and role clarification so
that they know what to expect from each other, work towards a common vo-
cabulary, agree for the best research strategy, develop tolerance, humility and
an appreciation for colleagues and other disciplines and their contributions.
Group members engage in an interactional process of collective decision
making and they draw emotional and cognitive boundaries within relation-
ships of exchange and deliberation.42
LAMONT suggests three customary rules: Deference to expertise, respect of
disciplinary sovereignty and collegiality. (1) Deference to expertise means
that researchers mark their territory and draw on previously established
proofs of competence. They defer to the expertise of others if the situation
requires that they take positions on topics about which they know little. (2)
Respecting disciplinary sovereignty means that group members’ opinions ge-
nerally are given more weight according to how closely the area of deliber-
ation overlaps „their“ fields. (3) Collegiality refers to the quality of research-
ers in cognitive terms and in terms of presentation of self and moral and emo-
tional characteristics. It encompasses a consistently respectful tone toward
one another and the creation of an amicable environment where members
listen carefully and are influenced by one another and thus, limit the potential
for frictions and tensions hindering decision making. Collegiality “is the oil
that keeps the wheels of deliberation turning.”43 During deliberations condi-
tions of equality are equally important: For example, convince one another
with the force of reason, each participant be given full liberty to express his or
her opinion without any reprisa, each be provided opportunity for full and
equal voice. However, it has to be taken into account that members vary in
age, race, and gender, they represent institutions of uneven prestige and each
researcher can only claim expertise on a specific subset of topics.44 Neverthe-
42 See also BOIX MANSILLA VÉRONICA/SATO KYOKO/CHUA FLOSSIE/IVANIER ANALIA/
LAMONT MICHÈLE, Building socio-cognitive platforms for interdisciplinary collabor-
ation. Internal working report, Cambridge 2009; BOIX MANSILLA VÉRONICA/SATO
KYOKO/ LAMONT MICHÈLE, Successful interdisciplinary collaborations: The construc-
tion of shared socio-emotional-cognitive platforms for interdisciplinary synthesis, In-
ternal paper, Cambridge 2010.
43 LAMONT, p. 120.
44 Furthermore, in her study, LAMONT (pp. 112-120) suggests that the following charac-
ter traits and skills go into the equation that defines and establishes an individual’s
credibility: Show up properly prepared for meetings, demonstrate intellectual breadth
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
154
less, customary rules can help to neutralize conflicts and encourage interdis-
ciplinary conversations in the context of deliberations despite perceived in-
equalities of prestige and influence across disciplines.45
B) Towards Integration: Collaborative Competencies
and Leadership
Drawing from the analysis of the impeding and enabling factors of IRC, the
following factors seem to be critical for the development of a cohesive group
and for effective collaborations in the course of interdisciplinary debate and
discussion: Leadership (team management) and collaborative competencies
(knowledge, skills, attitudes). Intensive interactions are the glue that binds
members together and allows for successful research collaborations.
Collaborative competencies of team members
The selection of suitable collaborators from other disciplines seems to be the
starting point of successful IRC among scientists. Potential network members
need both, a clear expertise in a disciplinary field as well as a deep commit-
ment to work collaboratively in defining a research agenda in order to con-
duct research that would otherwise not be possible. In general, the need for
collaboration and communication increases with the degree of synthesis, that
is, the level of integration of the expertise of each group member. In order to
allow for constructive communications and productive deliberations, over-
come disciplinary preconceptions and language barriers and establish an at-
mosphere of mutual trust and belonging as well as positive relationships and a
positive work climate, interdisciplinary researchers should be willing and able
to
- show mutual respect, tolerance and patience with regard to the diversity of
viewpoints, methods and models presented by others,
- develop an appreciation for other experts and disciplines as well as for
their epistemological approaches and methodologies and accept them as
equally valid deferring to one another’s expertise where appropriate,
- listen carefully to others and establish and follow customary rules to allow
for an effective communication,
- demonstrate curiosity, enthusiasm, openness and flexibility,
and expertise, be succinct, speak across disciplinary boundaries and respect other
people’s expertise and sentiments.
45 LAMONT, p. 50-51.
SABINE HOIDN
155
- establish and commit to cooperative goals and articulate clearly the per-
spectives of their disciplines,
- engage in continual communication to enable reciprocal intercultural
learning (e.g. create a common language or learn each other’s disciplinary
language to be able to talk the talk of several disciplines and thus, permit
mutual understanding and integration),
- commit to share information and exchange knowledge with others, engage
in constructive argumentation and ask thoughtful questions,
- engage in role definition and role negotiation,
- commit to epistemological reflexibility of self and discipline.
These qualitities are crucial for group cohesion, bonding and smooth func-
tioning of the group.46 Scientists from different disciplines speak different
languages, thus, they have to make their perspectives as well as important
terms explicit and they need to agree upon the meaning of key terms, for
example. Hence, interdisciplinary researchers have to „constantly learn, un-
learn, and relearn across disciplines.“47 In the course of the integration
„boundary objects,“ that is, jointly created products (e.g. research plan, in-
terim reports, publications, recommendations) are generated to facilitate the
collaborative interdisciplinary process and outcome. However, more educa-
tion and training is needed to prepare for interdisciplinary team work and to
further develop collaborative competencies (e.g. group dynamics, conflict
resolution, problem-solving, decision-making, communication).
Effective team management – leadership
Team leaders face different challenges in the management of complexity and
heterogeneity in small or large interdisciplinary teams. IRC involves indi-
viduals with diverse professional and social backgrounds as well as individual
goals and interests which need to be incorporated to create synergies. Inter-
disciplinary researchers „operate within various frames of reference when it
comes to defining common research problems, identifying research tasks, and
assessing research outcomes.“48 Effective management reduces complexity
and is crucial for success involving the joint formation of research goals and
tasks, stimulation of the collaboration between team members and integration
of different viewpoints and interests by facilitating the effective flow of in-
formation and exchange of knowledge to foster intercultural mutual learning.
46 See also LYNCH JOHN, It’s not easy being interdisciplinary, International Journal of
Epidemiology 25/2006, p. 1121, for example.
47 RHOTEN 2003, p. 9.
48 HOLLAENDER/LOIBL/WILTS, p. 389.
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
156
HOLLAENDER/LOIBL/WILTS state that in order to successfully manage inter-
disciplinary team research managers „take on an active role in conflict resolu-
tion within the team, facilitating moderation between the different members’
viewpoints and motivation of the team members“ to foster integration and
consens within the team. In addition, fostering plurality, expressing expecta-
tions, providing resources needed, facilitating processes of reflection, stimu-
lating compromise and pinpoint areas of improvement are also facilitating
tasks in the course of IRC. Such management behavior also promotes the
development of joint goals, feelings of unity and trust, mutual openness, eq-
uality and group identity. Another task concerns improving communication
and knowledge exchange between team members „to ensure that boundaries
do not become barriers.“49 In this regard, the team leader/chair is in charge of
orchestrating deliberations keeping the discussion moving, ensuring that all
members have a chance to contribute, express an opinion and receive fair
hearing. He oversees the quality of the deliberations by ensuring substantive
arguments, managing overbearing personalities and preventing the formation
of excessive alliances and allegiances, if necessary.50 Management tasks also
include initiating early joint results (e.g. papers, working reports), organizing
and facilitating workshops and conferences, for example, and thus, fostering
integration and the dissemination of joint results.
V. Ideas for (Future) Research
„We are not students of some subject matter, but students of problems. And
problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or disci-
pline.“51
In the last decade more and more researchers recognize the limitations of
their disciplinary lenses when faced with complex problems. The rapidly
growing knowledge requires scientists from different disciplines to „join
forces“ to effectively address complex societal problems. A high degree of
synthesis requires interchange between disciplines in order to ensure that two
or more heads representing different disciplines are really better than one and
unfold potentials to enhance understanding, develop new conceptual frame-
works, produce significant scientific innovations (e.g. manned space flight,
discovery of the structure of DNA), solve complex problems or spawn new
49 HOLLAENDER/LOIBL/WILTS, p. 387.
50 LAMONT, p. 46.
51 POPPER KARL R., Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge,
New York 1963, p. 88.
SABINE HOIDN
157
scientific fields like neuroscience, behavioral economics or the learning sci-
ences. IDR seeks to advance knowledge in ways not possible through tradi-
tional, disciplinary research and aims at producing outcomes that are signifi-
cant and influential (e.g. through questions addressed or methods used). It
involves substantive collaboration among a team of researchers with diverse
expertise and training.
This chapter tried to capture characteristics, impeding and enabling factors as
well as implications for successful IRC. However, more empirical research
especially on interactional processes – is needed. Recently, a couple of multi-
ple case studies examining the intellectual and interactional qualities of inter-
disciplinary and collaborative work of experts were conducted and analyzed
by a group of researchers around VÉRONICA BOIX MANSILLA and MICHÈLE
LAMONT at Harvard University.52 The study is particularly concerned with
the complex practice of interdisciplinary expert knowledge production and
evaluation and devoted to the dilemmas inherent in doing research in interdis-
ciplinary research groups (academics) in the university context. It is sug-
gested that the effective interdisciplinary integration of knowledge depends
on the creation of a common platform, that is „a collectively constructed
space in which individuals engage (...) to examine a relatively shared problem
of study and advance productive insights through interdisciplinary ex-
change.“53 This work illustrates the importance of a comprehensive and em-
pirically grounded theory that does justice to the complexities of IDR. The
authors investigate organizational factors (e.g. funding), interactional factors
(e.g. team composition like size, roles; team leadership, identity, team com-
munication, working styles) as well as cognitive factors like the nature of the
problem under study, groups’ intellectual goals or integration strategies.54
It is suggested that interdisciplinary science flourishes „in a culture in which
discussions and interactions are constructive yet critical, rigorous but creative,
momentous but playful, open but exclusive, and self-reinforcing and thus
self-perpetuating.“55
52 BOIX MANSILLA ET AL., 2009; BOIX MANSILLA/SATO/LAMONT, 2010; BOIX MANSILLA
V./SATO, K./CHUA, F./HOIDN, S./IVANIER A./LAMONT, M., Building socio-emotional-
cognitive platforms for interdisciplinary research collaborations. Report prepared for
the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research, Cambridge 2010.
53 BOIX MANSILLA/SATO/LAMONT, p. 6-7.
54 See also PORTER ALAN L./ROESSNER J. DAVID/COHEN ALEX S./PERREAULT MARTY,
Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture, Research Evaluation
5(3)/2006, pp. 187-195.
55 CACIOPPO JOHN T., Better interdisciplinarity research through psychological science,
Observer 20(10)/2007, p. 3, retrieved March 14, 2010, <http://psychology.uchica
go.edu/people/faculty/cacioppo/jtcreprints/c07c.pdf>.
... The definition highlights four important characteristics of IDR: The mode of research (teams or individuals), the centrality of integration, the embeddedness of disciplines as knowledge sources and the aim of advancing theoretical and practical understanding (see also Hoidn, 2010). ...
... These rules also allow researchers working in interdisciplinary teams to draw emotional and cognitive boundaries within relationships of exchange and deliberation. Continuing interactions also seem to contribute to the creation of a repertoire of customary rules organizing members" behavior and contributing to the group"s identity formation (Hoidn, 2010). ...
... Disciplinary cultures: Conflicting values, differences in epistemology, finding "common ground" through deliberation (transaction costs), communication problems and territorial and status conflicts are cultural barriers that constitute major impeding factors for IDR (Hoidn, 2010; O"Rourke & Crowley, 2013). In addition, loyalty to the department or one"s discipline can lead to irrational and anti-interdisciplinary decisions. ...
Article
Full-text available
Complex problems cross the boundaries of traditional disciplines and thus, require researchers and research groups in higher education to engage in interdisciplinary inquiry and collaboration to generate knowledge that is more than the sum of its parts. This article explores interdisciplinary research in higher education and the different views scholars in the social sciences (e.g., education, sociology, economics) hold in terms of how knowledge is produced, integrated and evaluated. Hindering institutional factors of interdisciplinary research that linger within the existing departmentalized framework at many higher education institutions are discussed. Finally, conclusions and implications are drawn to facilitate interdisciplinary research likely to advance fundamental understanding and lead to relevant, applicable and socially valuable results. Online: http://www.researchpublish.com/journal/IJIRI/Issue-3-July-2018-September-2018/45
... Africa; with a predominance of the Arts and Humanities fields, collaborative publishing accounted for a quarter of all the papers with 15% of those collaborations occurring with institutions that are outside the university system, meaning people were collaborating with non-university actors, with coauthorship being more prevalent in agriculture, chemical sciences and the biological sciences (Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), 2019, p. 69). This shows a growing trend in RC in various disciplines (Akakandelwa & Rousseau, 2016;Falagas et al., 2006;Hoidn, 2010;Christine Wamunyima Kanyengo, 2020;Logan et al., 2017;Rotich & Onyancha, 2017;Tijssen, 2015;van Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
The objective of the study was to explore research collaboration (RC) patterns in a university environment. Bibliometrics, a quantitative methodology was adopted for the study. Data was extracted from PubMed/Medline database, with a total of 281 articles retained for use in the study and then analysed quantitatively. It was found that, except in 1997 and 2000, most of the papers were authored by more than five researchers. The years 1998, 2004-2006, and 2011-2014 recorded 100% collaboration. As there were a total of 281 papers during the period under study (256 multi-authored plus 25 single authored papers) divided into 256 multi authored papers, the DIC for the School of Medicine over the whole period under study was 0.91; indicating a high degree of collaboration.Its major contribution to knowledge is the illumination of health research collaboration at the University of Zambia School of Medicine. Further studies on subject field research collaboration at the University school of Medicine are recommended.
Article
Purpose The process of knowledge creation is recognized as an essential process for organizational learning and innovation. Creating knowledge to solve the problems and complexities of today's world is like opening a black box. Hence, the higher education system and universities are exploring ways to overcome the complexities and cope with global changes. In this regard, interdisciplinary collaborations and activities are crucial in creating knowledge and innovation to counter these changes. This study aimed to know the experiences of Shiraz university interdisciplinary researchers in the field of humanities and also design and explain the conceptual model of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities. Design/methodology/approach In this qualitative research, grounded theory was implemented based on Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach. The sampling method was purposeful, and the participants included sixteen faculty members of shiraz university who had at least one experience of performing an interdisciplinary activity in one of the humanities fields. The first participant was selected as a pilot, and the rest were selected by snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were also used to collect data and continued until theoretical saturation was attained. After collecting the available information and interviewing the people, the data were organized and analyzed in three stages, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, using the proposed framework of Strauss and Corbin. Finally, the researcher reached a final and meaningful categorization. Findings In this research, the results were presented as a paradigm model of knowledge creation in the interdisciplinary research teams in the field of humanities. The paradigm model of the study consists of causal factors (internal and external factors), main categories (specialized competencies, scientific discourse, understanding of knowledge domains), strategies (structuring and synchronizing), context (individual and organizational), interfering factors (leadership, industry, and society), and consequences (individual and group achievement). Originality/value The present study aimed to explore the experiences of researchers in the interdisciplinary humanities research teams on knowledge creation in qualitative research. The study used Strauss and Corbin's systematic approach to recognize the causal factors of knowledge creation and the contexts. Discovering the main category of knowledge creation in interdisciplinary research teams, the authors analyze the strategies and consequences of knowledge creation.
Presentation
Full-text available
This presentation shares the findings of multiple case studies conducted in the United States examining the qualities of collaborative work of academics working together in interdisciplinary research groups are presented. It is suggested that the effective interdisciplinary integration of knowledge depends on the creation of a collectively constructed space in which academics interact socially, emotionally and cognitively to study a shared problem and advance productive insights through interdisciplinary exchange. A systematic understanding of the core mechanisms by which experts merge disciplinary traditions to tackle complex problems evolves around three quality dimensions of interdisciplinary collaboration: Intellectual dimension (e.g., the nature of the problem under study, the groups’ intellectual goals), interactional dimension (e.g., team composition like size, roles; team leadership, identity, team communication, working styles) and institutional dimension (e.g., funding, criteria used to monitor interdisciplinary work). A systematic understanding of these core mechanisms can help researchers and educators to move beyond over-specialization and engage in successful interdisciplinary work.
Technical Report
The Successful Interdisciplinary Collaboration Project examines, through a multiple case study, the experiences of experts working in nine research groups of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Santa Fe Institute. Three questions guide our empirical examination, which correspond to three determinants of successful interdisciplinary: (1) Intellectual Dimension: How do members of the group define the cognitive/epistemic nature of their enterprise? What cognitive platforms for interdisciplinary integration do they create? (2) Interactional Dimension: How do participants experience the construction of their group membership and collective work styles? How do such work styles contribute or hinder the creation of common platforms of disciplinary integration? (3) Institutional Dimension: What role do foundations play to enable the functioning of interdisciplinary groups? What organizational structures promote the generation of new interdisciplinary inquiries?
Article
Recognizing prior research and reflection, we offer a definition of interdisciplinary research (IDR) that focuses on integration of concepts, techniques and/or data. We note that this need not entail teaming. Building upon this definition, we discuss its implications for accurate measurement. We then synthesize contextual and process factors expected to foster knowledge integration. These suggest a rich set of research questions concerning the implications for successful IDR of actions by universities, funding organizations, professional associations, and the science media, including journal editors. We seek to engage social scientists who study research practices, organizations, and policy in consideration of interdisciplinary research processes and their evaluation.
Technical Report
The Successful Interdisciplinary Collaboration Project examines, through a multiple case study, the experiences of experts working in nine research groups of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Santa Fe Institute. Three questions guide our empirical examination, which correspond to three determinants of successful interdisciplinary: (1) Intellectual Dimension: How do members of the group define the cognitive/epistemic nature of their enterprise? What cognitive platforms for interdisciplinary integration do they create? (2) Interactional Dimension: How do participants experience the construction of their group membership and collective work styles? How do such work styles contribute or hinder the creation of common platforms of disciplinary integration? (3) Institutional Dimension: What role do foundations play to enable the functioning of interdisciplinary groups? What organizational structures promote the generation of new interdisciplinary inquiries?