Working together in Interdisciplinary research - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Working together in Interdisciplinary research

Seongsook Choi

April 2017Slide2

Interdisciplinary collaboration model

(Amey and Brown 2005)

Problems, issues, challengesLessons learnedSlide3

Interdisciplinary collaboration model

(

Amey

and Brown 2005:25)Slide4

The research process (Amey and Brown 2005)

Stage 1Single-discipline orientated – information exchange but no integration. Disciplines and individuals considered to be competing. Establishing their own disciplinary theories, practices, methodologies in an interdisciplinary collaboration.Slide5

The research process (Amey and Brown 2005)

Stage 2Work still single-discipline focused, but within overall co-ordination. Individuals have more understanding of other disciplines. Competition is replaced by coexistence.

The research process (Amey and Brown 2005)Slide6

The research process (Amey and Brown 2005)

Stage 3Shared understanding and decision-making occurring in an adaptive team, with increased communication at all levels. Individuals listen and reflect, and are motivated by learning as much as task completion. Coexistence is replaced by integration. (Hamilton et al. 2009: 166)

The research process (Amey and Brown 2005)Slide7

Conceptual issues

The Language Problem

Standard position, biggest obstacleSlide8

Salter and Hearn

(1996: 143–144)

The translation problem

The language problem

The reception problemSlide9

The translation problem

involves the movement of information from one discipline to another and is made more difficult by the language problemSlide10

The language problem

‘arises because the same words are used in quite different ways in different disciplines’ and has three dimensions: different dictionary definitions, the fact that many terms are contested concepts, and terminological borrowingSlide11

The reception problem

concerns how interdisciplinary work is received (publication, assessment, funding, etc.)Slide12

Conceptual issuesSlide13

Climate Security

(one-day interdisciplinary seminar)

Aim: identifying key issues and lines of interdisciplinary research in this area

Disciplines involved: Politics, International Studies, Sociology, Philosophy, Social Theory, Public Policy, Economics, Law, Biology, Engineering Slide14

Recognition of difference

Awareness of differences between disciplines and research orientations

Recognise the importance of drawing on one another’s strengths and expertise

A couple of invitations from social scientists to ‘scientists’ (QUAL to QUANT):

‘I wonder if a sci- the scientists who are here could tell us maybe what they think is missing

er

… that we could use

er

short of actually

retraining

ourselves.’

(Evan, CS4/5090429-01:30:04)

What would you like? I mean what- what

what

would you like the

softies

((brief laugh)) to give you?

(Mike, CS4/5090429-01:33:50)Slide15

Exploration of concept: justiceDo we really understand what justice means here? I mean i- it’s

fine to say the- that that would be the- but do we really know what this means? I mean do we have a good sense … are we anywhere close to defining what justice would require. Because as you point out there are so many different ways of … entering this and thinking about it and some of these things […] a bunch

of areas where we sort of sense that that maybe what we’d like is the- is is a fair outcome, a fair set of policies, I’m not sure that we’re having a discussion that will ever lead to that. So we end up falling back on things that are sort of analogous, sort of similar, sort of you know able to m- … so we can

muddle

through the next year, but w- we always a sense of not quite drilling

down

to what does it mean to … to have the a- … the climate

change

at a global scale, what does it

mean

to … to you know re-engineer human

beings

, what- what are the moral implications of it. So I’m not sure that we understand what justice …

means

on these

fronts

anymore.

(Roger CS1/2090429-01:40:07/01:41:54)Slide16

Different orientations emerging

The issues that needed to be resolved were not merely conceptual and related to different orientations. An important one in this meeting was that between researchers working ‘in the library’, at an abstract level and those ‘on the ground’, working with individuals and organisations seeking to resolve practical problems:Slide17

‘in the library’ vs ‘on the ground’,Um, I’m thinking, I’m looking at the definition here of climatic security and I’m sort of thinking, what

what does he mean? I’m sort of trying to understand what is actually meant by this, and I find it incredibly abstract, so I’m wondering, I mean, my understanding is climate security really is … is not really anything, um, and I guess this is how it differs from climate justice, um, that we say, you know, it is this, but rather we’re dependent on states, the UN, the EU and whoever to say what

they understand by the term, the- the er security analysts so then to look at well what do they actually mean and then work with these existing concepts

. So

I’m

wondering … if that’s the distinction … well

one

of the distinctions between the two, you know, that one

exists

in practice, as it happens and the other one is … one that we sort of impose top down as philosophers. And so … I’m wondering then, um,

er

,

what

… the group of people you’ve been working with or that work on similar

things

you’ve done such as (xxx xxx) and so on … what they

impact

they’ve had in the

real

world and what you are hoping to achieve

(Betty, CS1/2090429-01:44:52)Slide18

Disagreement

exposed a fundamental division between those for whom theory was particularly important and others who believed practical outcomes were more important.Slide19

35 Paul: No I- I- I think a- a conceptual interest is not is not divorced from 36 what happens on the ground. Er

em- what I said is that the 37 conceptual interest must not necessarily lead to policy advice. 38 The two of them are completely different. […]59 Rachel: Does- doesn’t that depend, sorry. Doesn’t that depend on the

60 issue, I mean climate change you know … we’re talking all day 61 how this is a relevant issue and how this is happening

. Isn’t it …

62

our

responsibility as academics to

try

and come up with some

63 policy making solutions rather than sit around inventing

poxy

64 concepts.

65 ((Laughter))

66 Rachel: I mean

67 Paul: Why

why

why

are concepts

poxy

?

68 Rachel: Because they’re not- they’re not

meaningful

in the sense that they

69 can be

used

. If they can't be [used for the policy making (world),

70 Paul: [But they

are

meaningful. We’ve

71 just- we’ve just discussed that the US government, eh the

72 European Union, the UNDP, everybody’s

using

these concepts.

73 They can't be

poxy

. They

regulate

our lives. … They regulate

74 what happens in the

world

at the tiniest …

level

.

(CS3/4090429-01:08:20/01:10:45/01:11:45)Slide20

Stage 3 problem

What about problems arising from interactional practices established over time?

Example: the desk vs practice (in this case the lab)

Systems biology interdisciplinary research project meetingsSlide21

The wets and dries45 Sue: Why are the blue ones not (.) the

sa:me46 across47 (2.0)48 Sue: across the experiment.

49 Mary: eh just because of the variability of50 the 

ch

ip.

51 (1.5)

52 Mary: ‘

cuz

: as much as I

trie

::d (.) like

y’r

53

gonna

have a biological effect ‘

cuz

each

54

sam

ple’s different.

55 Sue:

Oka:y

.

56 Mary: So=

57 Sue: =

So┌so

if the- if THEIR if their ┐=

58 Mary: └I don’t think there’s e- o-┘

59 Sue: =variability wasn’t there (.) you would

60 have

61 (0.4)

62 Sue: they- they’d be all the

sa

me.

63 (0.8)

64 Kate?:



HHehuh



65 Mary: I

mea:n

: w’ ┌try an’ ┐ get them as:=

66 Kate?: └

Heheh

! ┘

67 Mary: =as (.) They’re not

that

bad.

Heh!hehheh

!

68 ???: ((Very short guttural sound.))

69 Mary: I’ve had them

wo

rse than ┌that.

70 Sue: └No I w’s jus-

71 trying to under

sta

nd.

(WSBLH0513-00:11:20)Slide22
Slide23

What do we learn from this?

Be prepared to tackle conceptual differences and accept that these may not be easy to resolve. Shared understanding involves more than merely resolving vocabulary differences.

Accept that there may be other fundamental difference that need to be addressed. Try to identify these and work to resolve them.Don’t assume that reaching Stage 3 represents success. Interactional routines and practice will have been established.

Are all of these productive?

Are contributions from particular disciplines or participants being subtly closed down?

Is one discipline dominating?

Etc.Slide24

References

Amey

, M. J. and Brown, D. F. (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration and academic work: A case study of a university partnership. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 102: 23–35.Choi, S. and Richards, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary Discourse: communicating across disciplines. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hamilton, A., Watson, F., Davies, A. L. and Hanley, N. (2009). Interdisciplinary conversations: The collective model. In S.

Sörlin

, S. and P.

Warde

(

eds

). Nature’s End: History and the Environment pp.162–187. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Salter, L. and Hearn, A. (1996). Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.