Advertisement

Facilitating Integration in Interdisciplinary Research: Lessons from a South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project

  • Alicia L. Lanier
  • Jillian R. Drabik
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Jessica Bolson
  • Michael C. Sukop
  • David W. Watkins
  • Jennifer Rehage
  • Ali Mirchi
  • Victor Engel
  • David Letson
Article

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research is increasingly called upon to find solutions to complex sustainability problems, yet co-creating usable knowledge can be challenging. This article offers broad lessons for conducting interdisciplinary science from the South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate Project (SFWSC), a 5-year project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal was to develop a holistic decision-making framework to improve understanding of the complex natural–social system of South Florida water allocation and its threats from climate change, including sea level rise, using a water resources optimization model as an integration mechanism. The SFWSC project faced several challenges, including uncertainty with tasks, high task interdependence, and ensuring communication among geographically dispersed members. Our hypothesis was that adaptive techniques would help overcome these challenges and maintain scientific rigor as research evolved. By systematically evaluating the interdisciplinary management approach throughout the project, we learned that integration can be supported by a three-pronged approach: (1) Build a well-defined team and leadership structure for collaboration across geographic distance and disciplines, ensuring adequate coordination funding, encouraging cross-pollination, and allowing team structure to adapt; (2) intentionally design a process and structure for facilitating collaboration, creating mechanisms for routine analysis, and incorporating collaboration tools that foster communication; and (3) support integration within the scientific framework, by using a shared research output, and encouraging team members to adapt when facing unanticipated constraints. These lessons contribute to the international body of knowledge on interdisciplinary research and can assist teams attempting to develop sustainable solutions in complex natural–social systems.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary science Team science Collaboration Adaptive management Knowledge co-production 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. EAR-1204762, EAR-1204780, and EAR-1204474. This research was conducted in collaboration with the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research program under Grant No. DEB-1237517. This is contribution number 884 from the Southeast Environmental Research Center in the Institute of Water & Environment at Florida International University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baker B (2015) The Science of Team Science: an emerging field delves into the complexities of effective collaboration. Bioscience 65(7):639–644.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bark RH, Kragt ME, Robson BJ (2016) Evaluating an interdisciplinary research project: lessons learned for organisations, researchers and funders. Int J Proj Manag 34(8):1449–1459.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett LM, Gadlin H (2012) Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med 60(5):768–775.  https://doi.org/10.2310/JIM.0b013e318250871d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boucek RE, Rehage JS (2015) A Tale of Two Fishes: Using recreational angler records to examine the link between fish catches and floodplain connections in a subtropical coastal river. Estuaries and Coasts 38(S1):124–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boucek RE, Soula M, Tamayo F, Rehage JS (2016) A once in 10 year drought alters the magnitude and quality of a floodplain prey subsidy to coastal river fishes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 73(11):1672–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braden JB, Brown DG, Dozier J, Gober P, Hughes SM, Maidment DR, Schneider SL, Schultz PW, Shortle JS, Swallow SK, Werner CM (2009) Social science in a water observing system. Water Resour Res 45(11):W11301.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown RR, Deletic A, Wong THF (2015) How to catalyse collaboration. Nature 525(7569):315–317.  https://doi.org/10.1038/525315a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown C, Bhat M, Rehage J, Mirchi A, Boucek R, Engel V, Watkins D, Ault J, Sukop M, Mozumder P (2018) Ecological-economic assessment of the effects of freshwater flow in the Florida Everglades on recreational fisheries. Sci Total Environ 627:480–493.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown J, Isaacs D (2005) The world café: shaping our futures through conversations that matter, 1st edition. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC, Hanson PC, Goring SJ, Filstrup CT, Read EK (2014) Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ 12(1):31–38.  https://doi.org/10.1890/130001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703–722. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312705055535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2008) Who collaborates successfully?: prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 437–446. San Diego, CA; 8–12 November.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460633
  13. Czajkowski J, Engel V, Martinez C, Mirchi A, Watkins D, Sukop M, Hughes JD (2018) Economic impacts of urban flooding in South Florida: potential consequences of managing groundwater to prevent salt water intrusion. Sci Total Environ 621:465–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeCarlo D (2004) eXtreme project management: using leadership, principles and tools to deliver value in the face of volatility. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Denning S (2010) A leader's guide to radical management of continuous innovation. Strategy & Leadership 38(4):11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Derby E, Larsen D (2006) Agile retrospectives: making good teams great. Pragmatic Bookshelf, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  17. Draper AJ, Jenkins MW, Kirby KW, Lund JR, Howitt RE (2003) Economic-engineering optimization for California water management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 129(3):155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eigenbrode SD, O’rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS et al. (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57(1):55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garner J, Porter AL, Borrego M, Tran E, Teutonico R (2013) Facilitating social and natural science cross-disciplinarity: assessing the human and social dynamics program. Res Eval 22(2):134–144.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goring SJ, Weathers KC, Dodds WK, Soranno PA, Sweet LC, Cheruvelil KS, Kominoski JS, Rüegg J, Thorn AM, Utz RM (2014) Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Front Ecol Environ 12(1):39–47.  https://doi.org/10.1890/120370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halvorsen KE, Knowlton JL, Mayer AS, Phifer CC, Martins T et al. (2016) A case study of strategies for fostering international, interdisciplinary research. J Environ Stud Sci 6(2):313–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harou JJ, Pulido-Velazquez MA, Rosenberg DE, Medellin-Azuara J, Lund JR, Howitt R (2009) Hydro-economic models: concepts, design, applications and future prospects. J Hydrol 375:627–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinz I, Pulido-Velazquez M, Lund JR, Andreu J (2007) Hydro-economic modeling in river basin management: implications and applications for the European water framework directive. Water Resour Manag 21(7):1103–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoch JE, Kozlowski SW (2014) Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. J Appl Psychol 99(3):390–403.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins MW, Lund JR, Howitt RE, Draper AJ, Msangi SM, Tanaka SK, Ritzema RS, Marques GF (2004) Optimization of California’s water system: results and insights. J Water Resour Plan Manag 130(4):271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kerth NL (2001) Project retrospectives: a handbook for team reviews. Dorset House Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langsdale S, Beall A, Carmichael J, Cohen S, Forster C, Neale T (2009) Exploring the implications of climate change on water resources through participatory modeling: case study of the Okanagan basin, British Columbia. J Water Res Plan Manag 135(5):373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lanier AL, Sukop MC (2016) Interdisciplinary projects require an adaptive and agile management approach: South Florida Water, Sustainability, and Climate project experience. Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, ASCE, 184–189. West Palm Beach, FL, 22–26 May.  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479865.019
  30. Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ (2005) The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Change 15(1):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):356–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGreavy B, Lindenfeld L, Hutchins K, Silka L, Leahy J, Zoellick B (2015) Communication and sustainability science teams as complex systems. Ecol Soc 20(1):2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirchi A, Watkins Jr DW, Madani K (2010) Modeling for watershed planning, management, and decision making. In: Vaughn JC (ed) Watersheds: management, restoration and environmental impact. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, Chapter 6Google Scholar
  34. Mirchi A, Watkins D, Czajkowski J, Martinez C (2015) Hydro-economic model of south Florida’s water resources. Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, ASCE, Austin, TX, 17–21 May.  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479162.211
  35. Mirchi A, Watkins D, Engel V, Sukop M, Czajkowski J, Bhat M, Rehage J, Takatsuka Y, Weiskoff R (2018) A hydro-economic model of the South Florida water resources system. Sci Total Environ 628:1531–1541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Committee on the science of team science. In: Cooke NJ and Hilton ML (eds). Board on behavioral, cognitive, and sensory sciences, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ Sci 23(3):612–629.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris PE, O’Rourke M, Mayer AS, Halvorsen KE (2016) Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landsc Urban Plan 154:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Owen H (2008) Open space technology: a user’s guide, 3rd edn. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Pennington D (2016) A conceptual model for knowledge integration in interdisciplinary teams: orchestrating individual learning and group processes. J Environ Stud Sci 6:300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0354-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Podesta GP, Natenzon CE, Hidalgo C, Toranzo FR (2013) Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of stakeholders: a case study of a collaborative project on climate variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the Argentine Pampas. Environ Sci Policy 26:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramaswami A, Weible C, Main D, Heikkila T, Siddiki S, Duvall A, Pattison A, Bernard M (2012) A social ecological infrastructural systems framework for interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems. J Ind Ecol 16(6):801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 91(8):1766–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Redman CL, Grove JM, Kuby LH (2004) Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7(2):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanfield RB (2002) The workshop book: from individual creativity to group action. New Society Publishers and The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  48. Stave KA (2003) A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water management options in Las Vegas, Nevada. J Environ Manag 67(4):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008) The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35(2):S96–S115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sukop M, Engel V, Bolson J, Lanier A (eds) (2017) Novel hydro-economic optimization of intensive water management systems [special issue]. Sci Total Environ. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/science-of-the-total-environment/special-issue/10TKSSP5DQM
  51. Thaler R (1992) The Winner's Curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. Free PressGoogle Scholar
  52. Thompson JL (2009) Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. J Appl Commun Res 37(3):278–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Treuer G, Broad K, Meyer R (2018) Using simulations to forecast homeowner response to sea level rise in South Florida: will they stay or will they go? Glob Environ Change 48:108–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner II BL, Esler KJ, Bridgewater P, Tewksbury J, Sitas N, Abrahams B, Stuart F, Chapin et al. (2016) Socio-environmental systems (SES) research: what have we learned and how can we use this information in future research programs. Curr Opin Environ 19:160–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plann 30:325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watkins Jr DW, Kirby KW, Punnett RE (2004) Water for the Everglades: the South Florida systems analysis model. J Water Resour Plan Manag 130(5):359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White DD, Wutich AY, Larson KL, Gober P, Lant T, Senneville CM (2010) Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci Public Policy 37(3):219–232.  https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X497726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia L. Lanier
    • 1
  • Jillian R. Drabik
    • 2
  • Tanya Heikkila
    • 3
  • Jessica Bolson
    • 4
  • Michael C. Sukop
    • 4
  • David W. Watkins
    • 5
  • Jennifer Rehage
    • 4
  • Ali Mirchi
    • 6
  • Victor Engel
    • 7
  • David Letson
    • 8
  1. 1.Lanier Consulting, LLCMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and PolicyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Earth and EnvironmentFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  5. 5.Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  6. 6.Department of Biosystems and Agricultural EngineeringOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  7. 7.U.S. Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA
  8. 8.RSMAS, Department of Marine Ecosystems and SocietyUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations