Minerva

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 407–440 | Cite as

The Snowbird Charrette: Integrative Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Environmental Research Design

Article

Abstract

The integration of ideas, methods, and data from diverse disciplines has been a transformative force in science and higher education, attracting policy interventions, program innovations, financial resources, and talented people. Much energy has been invested in producing a new generation of scientists trained to work fluidly across disciplines, sectors, and research problems, yet the success of such investments has been difficult to measure. Using the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) program of the U.S. National Science Foundation as a strategic research site, we conducted an experiment to determine whether and how the process and products of research of IGERT-trained scientists differ from those of scientists trained in disciplinary graduate programs. Among scientists in the early years of graduate study we found substantial and consistent differences suggesting that interdisciplinary training improved the quality and process of research, but this pattern was equally strongly reversed among students in the latter years of graduate study. Using systematic observation and other data we suggest why this might be so, then discuss the implications of these results for the design and conduct of graduate education and research.

Keywords

Science policy Graduate education Research Experiment IGERT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the National Science Foundation for grant EREC-035535 in support of this research. Insightful comments on various drafts of this paper were offered by Geoff Bowker, Jim Collins, Jim Dietz, Woody Powell, Jim Reichman, Frank Scioli, among others. The charrette would have been impossible without the excellent assistance of Chris Bail, Dave Conz, Sarah Damaske, Ingrid Erickson, Erin O’Connor, Aaron Panofsky, Andrew Parker, John Parker, Lauren Rivera, David Schleifer, and, especially, Rachel Tronstein.

References

  1. Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abt Associates. 2006. Contractor annual report and summary of the cross-site monitoring of the NSF integrative graduate education and research traineeship (IGERT) program. Final Report. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, A., G. Born, and G. Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bement, Arden. 2005. Speech to the AAAS Spring R&D symposium. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Ben-David, Joseph, and Randall Collins. 1966. Social factors in the origins of a new science: The case of psychology. American Sociological Review 31: 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird, E. 2001. Disciplining the interdisciplinary: radicalism and the academic curriculum. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22(4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boix Mansilla, Veronica, and Elizabeth Dawes Duraising. 2007. Targeted assessment of students’ interdisciplinary work. The Journal of Higher Education 78(2): 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, Adele. 1998. Disciplining reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Daily, Gretchen (ed.). 1997. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  11. European Union Research Advisory Board. 2004. Interdisciplinary research. Brussels: European Union. (EURAB 04.009-FINAL).Google Scholar
  12. Evans, Robert, and Harry Collins. 2008. Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Freedman, David, Robert Pisani, Roger Purves, and Ani Adhikari. 1991. Statistics, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Frickel, Scott, and Neal Gross. 2005. A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. American Sociological Review 70: 204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. The emergence of post-normal science. In Science, politics, and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision making, ed. René von Schomberg, 85–123. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Gillispie, Charles Coulston. 1960. The edge of objectivity: An essay in the history of scientific ideas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grant, Gerald and David Riesman. 1978. The perpetual dream: Reform and experiment in the American college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hackett, Edward J. 2005. Essential tensions. Social Studies of Science 35(5): 787–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hackett, Edward J., John N. Parker, David Conz, Diana R. Rhoten, and Andrew Parker. 2008. Ecology transformed: The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and the changing patterns of ecological research. In Scientific collaboration on the internet, eds. Gary M. Olson, Ann S. Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos, 277–296. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Hansson, B. 1999. Interdisciplinarity: for what purpose? Policy Sciences 32: 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatano, Giyoo and Kayoko Inagaki. 1986. Two courses of expertise. In Child development and education in Japan, eds. Harold Stevenson, Hiroshi Azuma, and Kenji Hakuta, 262–272. New York: W.H. Freeman. Available online http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/25206/1/6_P27-36.pdf.
  23. Jacobs, Jerry A., and Scott Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 35: 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. 1968. The academic revolution. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Kavaloski, V. 1979. Interdisciplinary education and humanistic aspiration: A critical reflection. In Interdisciplinarity and higher education, ed. J.J. Kockelmans. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Klein, J.T. 2000. A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In Practising interdisciplinarity, eds. P. Weingart, and N. Stehr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  27. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ladd, Everett Carll, Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1975. The divided academy: Professors and politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1972. Passion and politics: The dimensions of student involvement. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, P.E., and B.R. Umberger. 2003. Trends in interdisciplinary and integrative graduate training: An NSF IGERT example. Quest-Illinois-National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education 55: 86–94.Google Scholar
  31. Milgram, Stanley. 1969. Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  32. Mullins, Nicholas. 1972. The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva 10: 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council. 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  34. National Science Board. 2007. Enhancing support of transformative research at the national science foundation. Arlington: National Science Board.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Foundation. 2002. Integrative graduate education and research traineeship (IGERT) program (NSF 02–145). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. URL: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02145/nsf02145.htm#TOC. Accessed 13 June 2008.
  36. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pielke Jr., Roger A. 2007. The honest broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rhoten, Diana R. 2004. Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition? Items & Issues 5(1): 6–11. (article reprinted in Queste Istituzione 2008).Google Scholar
  39. Rhoten, Diana R., and Andrew Parker. 2005. Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary path. Science 306: 2046. (December 17).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rhoten, Diana R., and Stephanie Pfirman. 2007. Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy 36(1): 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rhoten, Diana R., Erin O’Connor, and Edward J. Hackett. 2008. The act of collaborative creation and the art of integrative creativity: Originality, disciplinarity, and interdisciplinarity. Thesis Eleven 96: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roy, Rustum. 1979. Interdisciplinary science on campus: That elusive dream. In Interdisciplinarity and higher education, ed. J.J. Kocklemans. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Salter, L., and A. Hearn. 1996. Outside the lines: Issues in interdisciplinary research. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schwartz, D.L., J.D. Bransford, and D.A. Sears. 2005. Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective, ed. J. Mestre, 1–52. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 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
  46. Stokes, Donald. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wake, M. 2008. Integrative biology: Science for the 21st century. BioScience 58(4): 349–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weingart, Peter, and Nico Stehr (eds.). 2000. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human Evolution and Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Social Science Research CouncilBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations