Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 165–196 | Cite as

Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: Co-Creating Research Ideas in eScience Teams

Article

Abstract

Collaboration within eScience teams depends on participants learning each others’ disciplinary perspectives sufficiently to generate cross-disciplinary research questions of interest. Participants in new teams often have a limited understanding of each other’s research interests; hence early team interactions must revolve around exploratory cross-disciplinary learning and the search for interesting linkages between disciplines. This article investigates group learning and creative processes that impact the efficacy of early team interactions, and the impact of those interactions on the generation of integrated conceptual frameworks from which co-created research problems may emerge. Relevant learning and creativity theories were used to design a management intervention that was applied within the context of an incipient eScience team. Project evaluation indicated that the intervention enabled participants to effectively cross disciplines, integrate conceptualizations, and generate research ideas. The findings suggest that attention to group learning and creativity issues may help overcome some barriers to collaboration on eScience teams.

Key words

interdisciplinary research learning and collaboration problem finding team science eScience teams cyberinfrastructure teams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant numbers OCI-0636317 and OCI-0753336 for the CI-Team Demonstration and Implementation Projects: Advancing Cyber-infrastructure Based Science Through Education, Training, and Mentoring of Science Communities (CI-Team). The author gratefully acknowledges the many collaborators involved in these projects, whose comments and insights have been useful and influential.

References

  1. Atkins, D., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. 84 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bammer, G. (2008). Enhancing research collaborations: three key management challenges. Research Policy, 37, 875–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barcellini, F., & Detienne, F. (2008). User and developer mediation in an Open Source Software community: boundary spanning through cross participation in online discussions. International Journal Of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 558–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benda, L., Poff, N. L., Tague, C., Palmer, M. A., Pizzuto, J., Cooper, S., et al. (2002). How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. Bioscience, 52(12), 1127–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boreham, N., & Morgan, C. (2004). A sociocultural analysis of organizational learning. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J., et al. (2008). From shared databases to communities of practice: a taxonomy of collaboratories. In: G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the internet, (pp. 53–72).Google Scholar
  8. Boulton, A., Panizzon, D., & Prior, J. D. (2005). Explicit knowledge structures as a tool for overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19(6), 2026–2029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bransford, J., Vye, N., Stevens, R., et al. (2006). Learning theories and education: toward a decade of synergy. In Handbook of educational psychology (p. 1080). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, L. M. (2005). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19(2), 574–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caruso, D., & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, Follow, Get Out of the Way: Sidestepping the Barriers to Effective Practice of Interdisciplinarity. Hybrid Vigor Institute White Paper, April 2001, 29 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Disckson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS, 100(14), 8086–8091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catlett, C., Beckman, P., Skow, D., & Foster, I. (2006). Creating and operating national-scale cyberinfrastructure services. CTWatch Quarterly, May 2006, Available online at http:///www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/print.php?p=35.
  14. Collins, S., Bettencourt, L., Hagberg, A., Larkey, L., Brown, R., Moore, D., et al. (2006). New opportunities in ecological sensing using wireless sensor networks. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 402–407.Google Scholar
  15. Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cottingham, K. (2002). Tackling biocomplexity: the role of people, tools, and scale. BioScience, 52(9), 793–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2003). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummings, J., & 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, November 8-12, 2008, San Diego, CA. New York, NY, USA, doi: 10.1145/1460563.1460633 ACM pp. 1–4.
  19. Dewulf, A., Francois, G., Pahl-Wolst, C., & Taillieu, T. (2007). A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 14. [online], URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art14/.Google Scholar
  20. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: the role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed., p. 476). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. Edelson, D. (2002). Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer, G., Guaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63, 482–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golde, C., & Gallagher, H. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems, 2, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guilford, J. (1967). The nature of human intelligence (p. 538). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1079–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2003). Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 8–17.Google Scholar
  28. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT. 381 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116, 26–37.Google Scholar
  30. Jeffrey, P. (2003). Smoothing the waters: observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 33(4), 539–562.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, M. (1995). The thinker’s toolkit. New York: Three Rivers Press. 368 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Kirschner, P. S., Buckingham-Shum, S. and Carr, C. (2003): Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. D. Diaper, (Ed.), London: Springer, 216 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 256 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Kraut, R., & Carroll, J. (2003). Applying social psychological theory to the problems of group work. In J. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 325–356). New York: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawrence, K. A. (2006). Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large eScience project. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15, 385–411.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 307–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lele, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience, 55(11), 967–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335–363.Google Scholar
  39. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: the social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Likens, G. (1998). Limitations to intellectual progress in ecosystem science. In M. Pace & P. Groffman (Eds.), Successes, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science (pp. 247–271). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magnus, P. D. (2007). Distributed cognition and the task of science. Social Studies of Science, 37(2), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 368 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Newell, B., Crumley, C. L., Hassan, N., Lambin, E. F., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Underdal, A. (2005). A conceptual template for integrative human-environment research. Global Environmental Change, 15, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Novak, J. D., & Wurst, M. (2005). Collaborative knowledge visualization for cross-community learning. In S. Tergan & T. Keller (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3426, pp. 95–116). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 237–262.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Pennington, D. (2006). Representing the dimensions of an ecological niche. Proceedings 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’06) Workshop: Terra Cognita 2006—Directions to the Geospatial Semantic Web, November 6, 2006, Athens, Georgia. Available online at url: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/partnerships/research/research/TerraCognita_Papers_Presentations/Pennington.pdf.
  49. Pennington, D. (2008). Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 8. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art8/.Google Scholar
  50. Pennington, D. (2010). The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative research teams. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(2), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pennington, D., Higgins, D., Peterson, A. T., Jones, M. B., Ludaescher, B., & Bowers, S. (2007). Ecological Niche Modeling Using the Kepler Workflow System. In I. Taylor, D. Gannon, E. Deelman, & M. Shields (Eds.), Workflows for e-Science. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. Pickett, S. T. A., Burch, W. R., Jr., & Grove, J. M. (1999). Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems, 2, 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pinheiro da Silva, P., Velasco, A., Kosheleva, O., & Kreinovich, V. (2010). How ai-type uncertainty ideas can improve inter-disciplinary collaboration and education: lessons from a case study. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 14(6), 700–707.Google Scholar
  54. Redman, C. L. (1999). Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems, 2, 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report: A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. San Francisco: The Hybrid Vigor Institute. 82 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2008). Organizing for multidisciplinary collaboration: The case of GEON. In G. M. Olson, J. S. Olson, & A. Zimmerman (Eds.), Science on the Internet. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  57. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free.Google Scholar
  58. Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. ETR&D, 52(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing elarning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.Google Scholar
  60. Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.Google Scholar
  61. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday. 423 pp.Google Scholar
  62. Spencer, B. F., Butler, R., Ricker, K., Marcusiu, D., Finholt, T., Foster, I., & Kesselman, C. (2006). Cyberenvironment project management: lessons learned. Report to the National Science Foundation, September 5, 2006, 36 pp.Google Scholar
  63. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stokols, D., Hall, K., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. (2008). The science of team science—Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64, 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: a test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Voss, J., & Bower, G. (1983). Problem-solving skill in the social sciences. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 165–213). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 159 pp.Google Scholar
  69. Wang, D., Berry, M., & Gross, L. (2006). On parallelization of a spatially-explicit structured ecological model for integrated ecosystem simulation. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 20(4), 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wear, D. N. (1999). Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems, 2, 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb issue, pp. 139–145.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, P. (2002). The competent collaboration manager. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchica taxonomy of leadership behavior: integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zimmerman, A., & Finholt, T. A. (2007). Growing an infrastructure: The role of gateway organizations in cultivating new communities of users, ACM Proceedings of Group’07, November 4–7, 2007, Sanibel Island, Florida. Available online at URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1316624.1316660.

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations