Abstract
Given thegrowingcentralityof interdisciplinarityto scientificresearch,gainingabetterunderstandingof successful interdisciplinarycollaborations has becomeimperative.Drawingonextensive case studies ofnine research networksin the social, natural,andcomputationalsciences, we proposea constructthatcaptures themultidimensionalcharacterof suchcollaborations, that of sharedcognitive-emotional-interactional(SCEI) platform. Wedemonstrate its value as an integrative lens to examine markers of and conditions for successfulinterdisciplinarycollaborations as definedbyresearchers involvedinthese groups. We showthat 1) markersand conditionsembody three different dimensions: cognitive, emotional andinteractional; 2) these dimensionsarepresent in all networks,albeit to differentdegrees; 3) thedimensions areintertwinedand mutuallyconstitutive; and4)theyoperateinconjunctionwithinstitutional conditions created byfunders.Wecompare SCEIplatformstoavailable frameworks for successful interdisciplinary work.
SharedCognitive-Emotional-InteractionalPlatforms
Interdisciplinarityis increasinglyviewedbyNorth-Americanscientific fundingagenciesand policymakers as the philosopher’sstone,capable of turning vulgar metalsintogold. Interdisciplinaryresearch isoftendescribedas conduciveto creativity,progress, and innovation(Bruce et al., 2004;European Union Research Advisory Board, 2004; Huutoniemi et al., 2008; JacobsFrickel, 2009). While academic strategicplans and fundingagencies have committedmoreresources to interdisciplinaryresearchandgraduate training(Bruun et al., 2005; Feller2002,2006;Leahey2012;Hackett& Rhoten, 2009; NSF,2006), the number ofinterdisciplinarycollaborations, centers, inter-institutional teams anduniversity-industrypartnerships has steadilyincreased(Leahey,2012;Wuchty et al., 2007). Unsurprisingly, interdisciplinarityitself hasalso attractedconsiderableattention amongscholars (Bergmann et al., 2012; Brintet al., 2009; EURAB,2004; Klein, 2012;NationalAcademies, 2005;PaletzSchunn, 2010; Weingart,2010),someof whomarestudyingthe challenges ofsupportingandassessing thequalityofinterdisciplinarywork(BoixMansilla, 2006, BoixMansilla et al.,2006; Feller,2002;Lamont et al., 2006;Lamont, 2007, 2009;Laudel, 2006;Lahey,2012; Wagner, 2011)In thiscontext, understandingwhat defines successful interdisciplinarycollaborationsand howparticipants achieve it has becomeimperative.
Recognizing the difficulty to reach consensus over a definition ofinterdisciplinary research (Klein,1996, 2010b; Kockelmans, 1979;Lattuca, 200;OECD/CERI,1972; JacobsFrickel, 2009; O’Rourke 2014) we here adopt the oneproposedbythe U.S.NationalAcademies(2005, p. 2):
“[Interdisciplinaryresearch]is a modeof researchbyteams or individualsthat integrates information, data, techniques,tools,perspectives,concepts,and/ortheories from twoormoredisciplinesorbodies of specialized knowledgeto advanceafundamental understandingor to solveproblemswhose solutionsarebeyond the scope of a single discipline.”[1]
In thispaper, we respondtothe callbyPowell, Owen-Smith, and Smith-Doerr(2011),
Jacobs (2014),Leahey(2008), andothers for amoreintegratedsociologicalapproach tointerdisciplinarity. Drawingon extensivecase studies of nine research networksinthe social,natural, and computationalsciences supportedbythree institutions(the CanadianInstitute forAdvancedResearch [CIFAR], theMacArthurFoundation, and the Santa FeInstitute),we propose the analytical construct of a shared cognitive-emotional-interactional(orSCEI)platform to capture multi-dimensional processes of interdisciplinarycollaboration.The concept refers to a collaboratively constructed and shared“platform” that serves both as aspace in whichresearchers practicallyengage oneanotherto work on a common problemandas abasis that organizes theirbehaviorsandactivities.In this shared space,researchers define problems to study, exchange expertise, build personal relations, project and maintain academic self-concepts,and yoke for status; what they create together constitutes a basisthat shapes how they collaborate with each other – such as shared language, key concepts, tacit rules of interaction, group culture and identity, and collective mission. The concept of a SCEI platformhighlights the livedrealityofinterdisciplinarycollaborationas itunfolds byencompassinga) acognitivedimension, captured,forinstance,bythenotionof a “tradingzone”(Galison,1997);b)an emotional dimension,capturedbyParkerandHackett’s (2012) studyofemotions in interdisciplinary research teams; andc)aninteractionaldimension,captured bythe notion of“interactionalexpertise”(Collins & Evans, 2007; Collins et al 2010). We advance these contributions bydemonstratinghow central aspects of interdisciplinary collaboration – such as how participants define success and set objectives, pursue them, and understand they have achieved them – are simultaneouslycognitive,emotional, and/orinteractional in character.Moreover,with the concept of platform,we hopetodescribe what is both a site of andspringboardforcollaborativeactivities, a dynamicallyco-constructed space with aset of rulesand objectivesthat members develop, andboth resultant of andcontributing tocollaboration.[2]
Datasuggest thatmembers ofinterdisciplinary projects bringtheir respective disciplinarycognitive tools, exchange ideas,revise, and recast. Ininteracting around questions andfindings,theyfeeljoy and tensions, and develop sharedidentities. Moreover, as voluntary participants in collaboration, theyengage in give and take, develop a flexible and practical orientation towardsharedgoals, and deployknowledge ina waythathelps the group.Theyareexpected tocontribute andadjust to evolving intellectual objectives and styles of interaction and deliberation.Interactions unfold at the intersection of what is beingstudied,who isstudying,andwhat kinds of emotional dynamics are at play.These interactions are enabled byparticularinstitutional contexts set up byfunders. Thus, researchers interact on a sharedcognitive,emotional, andinteractional platform shaped by funding institutions.
We examine how interdisciplinary collaboration works and makesa caseforthenotion of SCEIplatforms, focusing on two key aspects researchers emphasize: whatsignals interdisciplinarysuccess(“markers”)and whatfacilitates such success (“factors”). The networks studied are regarded as successful by funders, and by standard academic measures (publications and policy impact). By analyzing participant accounts, we identify how each network sought such success. We also show that:
1)Markers of andfactors for successfulinterdisciplinarityencompassthreedimensions: cognitive;emotional; and interactional.
2)The cognitive,emotional, andinteractionalare present for allnetworks to different degree: respondentsacross networksassociate successful interdisciplinarycollaborationwith features suchas their substantive impact onsubsequent research, participants’ excitement,andinteraction styles thatenable mutual learning.
3)The cognitive,emotional, andinteractional dimensions operate inconjunctionwithinstitutional conditionsestablished byfunders. These include rules andorganizational context for collaboration, material andorganizational resources,and institutionalizedexpectationsaboutcollaborationscommunicated toresearchers.
4)The cognitive,emotional, andinteractionaldimensions areintertwinedand mutuallyconstitutive(Sewell,1992). Whileanalytically distinct,in practice these dimensionsare deeply entangled, structuring each other and inform the recruitment ofmembers,asintellectualcaliber,likeability,and sociabilityare considered. These dimensions are alsointertwined in participants’ descriptions of the cooperationnecessaryforintellectual integration.
SectionOnelocates our research inthe literature.SectionTwodescribes our methodological approachanddata.SectionThree presentsour empirical findings, starting with theroleof institutional settings for successful interdisciplinarycollaborations; it then introducesthethree dimensions of SCEIplatforms that were identifiedinductively,demonstrates their presenceacross networks, andshows thattheyare intertwined and mutuallyconstitutive. Section Fourdrawsconclusionandproposes afuture researchagenda.
TowardaMultidimensionalApproach
A growing literature oncollaboration has been informed by perspectives distinctively illuminating functional, structural, psychodynamic, and symbolic dimensions of collaborations (Poole et al., 2004). Functional approacheshave focused on inputs, outputs, and group procedures, bringing a normative emphasis to such phenomena as collective information processing (Stasser &Titus, 1985) and groupthink (Janis, 1982; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Classic psychodynamic studieshave favored the analysis of emotional, unconscious processes underlying the more rational and conscious interactions between group members (Baels & Cohen, 1979). Social identity and power-centered approacheshave explored how individuals construe theirparticipation, belonging, and status (Poole & Hollingshead, 2005). Beyond studies of collaboration writ large, investigators of interdisciplinary collaborations have focused on demands of integrative knowledge production such as understanding methods and assumptions of disciplines or arrangements that facilitate cross-disciplinary dialog (Holland 2014).
Cognition
Cognitive approaches to interdisciplinary research have emphasized the natureof knowledgeand its representation, exchange,integration, and validation(Boix Mansilla, 2010; Frodeman, 2010; Klein,1996).Drawingoninterviewsand observation datafrom leadinginterdisciplinaryresearch centers, Boix Mansilla (2002),Nikitina (2005) andMiller(2006) have shownthat experts employmultipledisciplinaryintegrationstyles– conceptual-bridging,aesthetic-synthesis,comprehensive,andpractical.Each stresses distinctcognitive processesforintegrationandconcomitantvalidationcriteria.Cognitivecriteriaforvalidatinginterdisciplinarywork – e.g., disciplinarycoherence,pragmaticbalance,andcognitive advancement – differ from commonly-used qualityproxies, suchas publication number, fundingsuccess, and institutionalprestige (Boix Mansilla, 2006).
In recent years, scholars have focused on cognitive integration as key to interdisciplinary work (Bammer, 2012; Bergmann et al, 2012; O’Rourke et al, 2015; Thompson Klein2012, Repko, 2012). Their views differ in the degree to which they viewintegration as the ultimate aim of interdisciplinary work or a means to deeper understanding. They also differ in their more linear and algorithmic vs more heuristic and iterative view of the process by which integration happens.For his part, Holbrooke (2013)questions the centrality of cognitive integration in interdisciplinary work and its concomitant assumption of consensus. All too often, he explains, disciplinary insights prove simply incommensurable. His analysis, however, sidesteps the pragmatic disposition that often leads interdisciplinary scholars to find “workable” rather than idealized integrative solutions (Lamont 2010).
Philosophically inspiredDominic Holland (2014) points to epistemological demands of successful interdisciplinary work—i.e., uncovering, logical relations, alignments and contradictions underlying different ideas and units of analysis. Holland recognizes scientific inquiry “presupposes an underlying context of (interdependent) social structures – such as recognition and reward, academic employment, the scientific division of labour” (Holland 2014. Kindle Locations 2384-2386) but he does not addresshow micro-social interactions shape and are shaped by the intellectual work pursued.
Also prioritizing cognition in social processes of knowledge, studies ofsocialcognitionanddistributed expertiseshowhow cognitiveapprenticeships,suchas collaborations in teaching, enable expertsto learnintellectual practices inneighboringdomains (e.g.,analysisstyles, disciplinarylanguages)essentialfor interdisciplinaryexchange(Lattuca, 2001,Lave &Wegner 1991). Studies highlight theroleofmetacognitive capacityinmonitoring cross-disciplinaryinformation processingwithingroups, integrativeproducts(e.g., shared constructs, methods) that make tacitdisciplinaryknowledge explicit and enable integration (Bromme, 2000, p. 119; Clark, 1992;Derry et al.,2005).
Science studies too have examined cross-disciplinary knowledgeexchange.Galison’s (1997)concept “tradingzone” describeshowscientists and engineersfrom different disciplinarycultures collaborate.Studying the development ofradardetectorsandparticleaccelerators, he found that researchers in differentcommunitiesdeveloped acommon local language to getaroundwhatKuhn ([1962]1996,p.148) haddescribedas“incommensurability”betweenresearchparadigms. Drawing onanthropological linguists’work on locallanguage practicesin borderzones,Galison(1997) describeshowresearchersfrom“quasi-autonomous” domains with distinct scientific languages, subcultures and institutionalgroundingscoordinateintellectualexchange withouthavingtoestablish comprehensivemutualunderstandingandagreement.In the “trading zone” shared linguistic andproceduralpractices bind researcherstogether, whocan exchange ideas andpractices,evenwhen they may“ascribeutterlydifferentsignificanceto the objects being exchanged” or disagreeabout“global”meanings of constructs (Galison, 1997, 2010, p. 783).
Insum, muchwork oninterdisciplinarycollaborations examines their cognitive aspects. While some constructs extend beyond the cognitiverealm and point to theroleof social interactions in knowledge exchange, witha few notableexceptions (Griffin, 2014; ParkerHackett,2012; ThagardKroon, 2008), thisliterature takes the emotional counterpart ofcognition for granted.
Emotion
As Parker and Hacket (2014) point out, the emotional dimension of science was an important area of concern and inquiry for such earlier scholars as Weber (1918/1946), Fleck (1935) and Merton (1938), but research on emotions and research on science have since been done mostly separately, and very limited work has been done to theorize the relationships between the two.As notable exceptions, some students of knowledge production have followed Weber, who viewed science asapassionate enterprise. Scheffler(1986:348) has argued that certain emotionaldispositions underliecommitments to rationality, suggesting that academic work is anchored in “cognitiveemotions,”suchas “thejoyofverification” (1986: 354),whileNeumann (2006) called this anchor “passionatethoughts”(Neumann 2006, p. 381).Elgin (1999)has pointed tothe frustrationof cognitive dissonanceand theanxietygenerated bycognitive overload,whileCsikszentmihalyi(1990)discussed the satisfyingpeak experience of“flow” and thejoyofengagingmeaningfulissues.
Fromadifferentapproach,neuroscientistshaveargued thatemotions servean orientingfunction incognitiveendeavors, through selectiveattentionand encoding memories inthe brain(Immordino-YangandFischer2009).Because emotions underlie prior experience, theyorientresearchers’ senseof which lines of thought,theories, or questions are resonantand worth pursuing. Duringthe moment-to-moment thinkinginthe creation ofa framework ortheresolution of aproblem, emotions encode tacit knowledge; theyoffervisceral markers of “a sensethatwearemovingin theright direction” (Immordino-YangandFischer2009 p. 313), “helping [researchers]tocall up information andmemoriesthat arerelevantto thetopicorproblem at hand”(ibid).
In social and cultural studies, in an emerging “affective turn” (Ahmed 2004, 2010; Harding and Pribram 2009; Gregg and Seigworth 2010; Liljeström and Paasonen 2010),more researchers are considering the role of emotions in shaping processes of collaboration. Attending to the unique demands of interdisciplinary collaborations, Griffin et al (2013) draw on cultural theories of affect to explore how emotions are “articulated, mobilized, and practiced in research collaboration”, showing that how “emotions work” (Hochschild 1979) varies under different conditions. They describe their own experience of factoring time to negotiate differences in working styles, disciplinary paradigms, and institutional positioning. They also point to emotional tensions “experienced as stress, frustration and competitiveness” arising from the contradictory demands experienced by collaborating scholars (Hildur Kalman 2013 KL 306-308). Interdisciplinary researchers must manage their intellectual excitement while recognizing that disciplinesprovide the conceptual structures for productive exchange (Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth 2000).
Characterizingtheroleofemotions beyond individual cognition, Thagardand Kroon(2008) havedocumented consensus buildingin agroupas“theresult of atleastpartialconvergence ofbeliefsand emotionalvalues”(p.66).In theirmodel,cognitive consensus is complementedby“emotional consensus building,”a processbywhich group members come to sharepositiveand negative feelingsaboutdifferentactions andgoals.Studyinginterdisciplinaryfunding panels,Lamont(2009)observedcomparablecalibration processes,arguing that emotionsareanessential dimension of academic selvesthat shape the work ofinterdisciplinarypanels: “…evaluation is a processthat is deeplyemotionaland interactional.It is culturallyembeddedandinfluencedbythe ‘social identity’ ofpanelists—that is,their self-concept andhow othersdefine them”(Lamont2012, p.8).
In their study of retrospective accounts of highly cited scientists describing aspects of their work, Kopmann et al. (2015) show that norms for appropriate emotional expressions pervade researchers’ accounts across hard and soft disciplines but vary in content. For example,psychologists associated emotion to having an original idea in contrast with physicists whose joy was expressed when verifying a hypotheses. Similarly, researchers studying organisms (people, animals plants) characterized these in more emotional terms than those who studies molecules, atoms or particles (Kopmann et al. 2015).
With a focus on the role of emotions in interdisciplinary work, ParkerandHackett (2012) liken interdisciplinary collaborations to intellectualsocial movements (Frickel and Gross 2005): “[emotions] catalyze andsustaincreative scientific workand fuel thescientific andintellectualsocialmovementsthatpropelscientificchange” (p.1). Their micro-sociological casestudyshowsthat, to be successful,groups must produce specificforms of emotion:“flow”,“interpersonaltrust”, “commitment to ideas” and “grievances against dominantintellectual trends.”Suchemotions enableresearchers to navigate the dualprocessof conceivingcreative ideas andmanagingskepticism.Their work concurs with arenewed focusonemotioninhiring (e.g. Rivera2012), culture(Illouz2007),social movements(Goodwin,Jasper,andPolleta2001) and knowledgemakingpractices (Camic et al. 2011). Yet, how emotions shapecognitive innovation andsocial dynamics ininterdisciplinarywork remains underexplored – thusthe importance ofa close analysis of theserelationships.
Interaction
Scholars on academic collaborationhaveexamined the social character ofinterdisciplinarywork.Sociologists have studiedthe complexrelationshipbetween thesteadygrowth in collaborative research inthe social andnaturalsciences on theonehand,andnorms of productivity,originality,and individual career pathson the other(Jacobs &Frickel, 2009;Leahey,2012; Rhoten Pfirman, 2007).In acomprehensive review of thisresearch,Leahey(2012)identified contradictorytrends: while organizational ecologyresearchfinds thatindividuals conductcollaborative interdisciplinarywork at acost (i.e., having to master multiple areas ofscholarshipandbe reviewedacross fields(Hannan, 2010), researchon networks, diversity,and recombinant innovation showshighlevelsof productivity, originality,andgrowth associatedwithcross-disciplinary expert interactions (Hargadon, 2002; Powell et al., 2011). Leahey(2012, p. 14)calls for research on the “moderating conditions” thatmediate collaborativearrangements and theiroutcomes:“We need to theorize (and […]investigate) theroleof mechanisms [e.g.,cognitive integration,perceived novelty,institutionallogic, ornetwork position]in producingeffects [e.g., productivity, academic careers,original work, diffusionof ideas].”
Scholars ofthe collective production ofartistic, scientific, andinterdisciplinaryknowledge drew inspiration from the social movement literature (FrickelGross, 2005). They have demonstratedhow collaborators constructand sustaincollective effervescencethroughface-to-face interaction(ParkerHackett,2012) and sharesuperordinategoals unitingtheircollective workwhilealsomaintaining disparateinterests(O’Mahoney Bechky,2008), andhow powerrelations,networks,andinstitutionalforces mediatesuccess(Powelletal., 2011).
Consideringinteractionandcognition, CollinsandEvans(2007) focus on “interactional expertise” – the “kind of expertisethatbridgesdistinct[disciplinary]practice through a deep sharingofdiscourse” (2007, p. 53). It involves the capacity to “walk thetalkofsuch expert community,justas one canwatch, understand,anddiscussatennis match withoutbeing agreattennis player”(p.7).Itenables membersofdistinct disciplinarycultures toparticipate inproductive conversations, without “contributoryexpertise” in each other’s domain.
Ifsharingdiscourseisthe cornerstone of interactional expertise, sharingobjectsisnoless significant. Star andGriesemer(1989)coinedthe notion of “boundaryobjects” to describesharedcognitive/interactionalfoci of knowledgethat are plasticenough tobe interpreteddifferentlybyrelevantactors,yet robust enough to maintain a unityacrosscontexts.Extendingthisnotion, Guston (2001) and O’Mahoney Bechky (2008)examined how“boundaryorganizations”create moreor lessstableenvironments thatenablecollaborations across fields, providing “amechanism that reinforcesconvergentinterestswhile allowingdivergentones to persist” (p. 426): these organizations “triggeradaptationaroundkeyorganizingdomains;theydelineate boundariesbetweenconvergent anddivergentinterests,andtheyprovide adurable structureto reinforcemutual adaptation”(p. 452).
Finally, turning emic attention totheinnerworkings ofexpert collaborations, culturalsociologists have soughtto understandsocial interactions from theperspectiveofcollaboratorsthemselves.(Lamont 2009;also Lamontet al.2006) has shown how members ofinterdisciplinaryreviewpanels construepanel-specificnotionsof excellence and originalitythroughthe process of face-to-face deliberation(also Hirschauer 2009). Panelistbridgedisciplinarycultures andepistemological positions while developing togethersharedrules ofdeliberation that facilitateagreement – e.g., respectingthe sovereigntyofotherdisciplines, deferring tocolleagues’ expertise, bracketingself-interest and disciplinaryprejudices,andpromotingmethodologicalpluralism.
Multidimensional Approach
Whilestudies of interdisciplinarity havegenerally examined the three crucial dimensionsof collaborationbyprivilegingone analytical dimensionor two at a time,empirically-based approaches are rare. As an exception, Stokols’ ecological model of transdisciplinary science (Stokolset al., 2008a, b)providesaneticviewof interdisciplinarycollaborations, aiming tospecifycontextual factorsthatmaypromote or impede the success ofcollaboration.Stemming from studies of cancerresearchat theNationalInstitutes ofHealth, this model identifies intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational factors, and even considers physical-environmental, technologicaland socio-political factors.
Yet no previous empirical studyhas considered in tandem therespectiveroles of cognitive, emotional, and interactionaldynamics insuccessfulinterdisciplinarycollaborations, taking the researchers’ construal of their experiences as a point of departure. Exploring the researchers’ lived experiences, this papercomplements the current literatureon interdisciplinarycollaborations bydemonstratingtheirmultidimensionalcharacter, thedynamicsof theirthree dimensions, and institutionalconditions that shape such dynamics.
MethodsandData
We examinedmarkers of and conditions for successfulinterdisciplinary collaborationsby drawingon extensive case studies ofnineresearchnetworks of the CIFAR, theMacArthurFoundation, and the Santa FeInstitute. A cross-case approachcancapture each network’s complexity andreveal contextual forces that shape individuals’ experiencesin them.
These threeinstitutions werechosen based on their comparability: theyareamongthemost renownedNorth-American promotersofinterdisciplinaryresearch;theyhave brought together leading experts to conduct interdisciplinary research that hashad a considerable impact on numerous fields in the natural andsocial sciences; theyincentivize participation with materialsupport and opportunities to work with prominent researchers. Institutions enabled and nurtured collaborations, setting parameters for success. Their investmentsvaried inamount and duration. They differed in howtheyputresearch teams together,and the type ofcontrol they exercise on the networks. They also varied the conditions they set for teams. Forinstance,one funder encouraged the pursuitof “bigquestions” while another one expectscollaborative outcomes to have a visible impact in society; still a third one seeks projects that are innovativeand exploratory,advanced by just-in time established smaller-scaled and shorter-termed networks. As we will discuss,institutional support played a key role in setting up a context in which collaboration took place.
Theresearchnetworkswereselected inconsultation withthe fundinginstitutionsbased on comparability, suitability,andwillingness of researchers to participate.Wealso aimed tocapture a broadrangeof disciplinarycollaborations, while seeking cross-institutional comparabilityin themes addressed. Table 1 provides this information.
------
InsertTable 1about Here
------
These networks existed for one to eightyears at the time of data collection.Eachincluded eight to fifteenmembers,andbrought togetherscholars fromat leastthree disciplines, qualifying as interdisciplinarybymoststandards and also being describedas such bytheirmembers and funders. Mostnetworks conveneregularly invarious locationsto discuss ongoingresearchandto develop collaborations.Funders view suchnetworksas toolsforshapingthe researchfrontier of particular fields, and offerdifferenttypes of compensation: some supportspecific research projectsand meeting costs,whileothers provide participants resources for their own work.