Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 55–68 | Cite as

Collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning and co-emergent innovation in eScience teams

Research Article

Abstract

Collaborative eScience research teams are impeded by difficulties defining problems that provide research opportunities for all participants. Problem formulation occurs early in the collaboration process when the demand for ideas is high. However, cross-disciplinary linkages and integrated conceptual frameworks from which strong interdisciplinary ideas emerge do not evolve until later. The process of co-creating interdisciplinary research ideas is fundamentally a learning problem; participants from different disciplines must learn enough about each other’s research interests to construct an integrated conceptual framework from which joint problems of interest can be created. However, participants rarely have the conceptual background needed to easily understand research topics in other disciplines; hence methods for enabling rapid learning in these situations are needed. Team interactions that more effectively generate interdisciplinary ideas can be enabled based on a better understanding the process of cross-disciplinary, collaborative learning. This article postulates several models of collaborative learning in these settings and discusses the implications for orchestrating team activities to achieve better outcomes.

Keywords

eScience Interdisciplinary research Collaboration Science of team science 

References

  1. Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002) Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications, Finland. Available online at: http://www.pss-europe.com/P478.pdf
  2. Argyris C, Schon DA (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, B (1989) Reflection: The cornerstone of learning from experience. Presentation at the Annual Convention University Council for Educational Adminstrators, Scottsdale, AZ, October 1989Google Scholar
  4. Beaulieu A, Wouters P (2009) E-research as intervention. In: Jankowski N (ed) e-Research: transformations in scholarly practice. Routledge, New York, pp 54–69Google Scholar
  5. Bos N, Zimmerman A et al (2007) From shared databases to communities of practice: a taxonomy of collaboratories. J Comput Mediat Commun 12:652–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Disckson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook SDN, Brown JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organ Sci 10(4):381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cottingham K (2002) Tackling biocomplexity: the role of people, tools, and scale. Bioscience 52(9):793–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darch P, Turilli M, Lloyd S, Jirotka M, de la Flor G (2010) Communication and Collaboration in e-Science Projects. Technical Report, Oxford e-Research Centre, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. De Roure D, Goble C (2009) Software design for empowering scientists. IEEE Softw 26(1):88–95, ISSN 0740-7459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drach-Zahavy A, Somech A (2001) Understanding team innovation: the role of team processes and structures. Group Dynam: Theory, Res Practice 5(20):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finholt TA, Olson GM (1997) From laboratories to collaboratories: a new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychol Sci 8(1):28–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer G, Guaccardi E, Eden H, Sugimoto M, Ye YW (2005) Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. Int J Hum Comput Stud 63:482–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giere RN (2002) Models as parts of distributed cognitive systems. In: Magnani L, Nersessian N (eds) Model based reasoning: science, technology, values. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Goel V (1992) Ill-structured representations for ill-structured problems. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  17. Golde C, Gallagher H (1999) The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems 2:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN (2005) Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, Taylor BK, Thornquist MD, Nebeling LC, Ehret CC et al. (2008) The collaboration readiness of transdiciplinary research teams and centers: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC Year-One Evaluation Study. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S):S161–S172Google Scholar
  20. Hartswood M, Jirotka M, Procter R, Slack R, Voss A, Lloyd S (2005) Working IT out in e-Science: experiences of requirements capture in a HealthGrid project. Stud Health Technol Inform 112:198–209Google Scholar
  21. Horridge H, Knublauch H, Rector A, Stevens R, Wroe C (2004) A practical guide to building OWL Ontologies Using the Protégé-OWL Plugin and CO-ODE tools, Edition 1.0. Cooperative Ontologies Program tutorial, pp. 118, Available at http://www.coode.org/resources/tutorials/ProtegeOWLTutorial.pdf
  22. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeffrey P (2003) Smoothing the waters: observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Soc Stud Sci 33(4):539–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jonassen DH (1997) Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educ Technol R&D 45(1):65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirschner PA (2002) Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learn Instr 12:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrence KA (2006) Walking the tightrope: the balancing acts of a large e-research project. Comput Supported Coop Work 15:385–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lele S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11):967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin SA (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):335–363Google Scholar
  31. Levine JM, Moreland RL (2004) Collaboration: the social context of theory development. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8(20):164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Likens G (1998) Limitations to intellectual progress in ecosystem science. In: Pace M, Groffman P (eds) Successes, limitations and frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer, New York, pp 247–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Magnus PD (2007) Distributed cognition and the task of science. Soc Stud Sci 37(2):297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. FreemanGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin RC (2003) Agile software development: principles, patterns, and practices. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  36. Muller MJ, Kuhn S (1993) Participatory design. Commun. ACM 36, 6 (June 1993), 24-28. doi:10.1145/153571.255960 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/153571.255960
  37. Newell B, Crumley CL, Hassan N, Lambin EF, Pahl-Wostl C, Underdal A (2005) A conceptual template for integrative human-environment research. Glob Environ Change 15:299–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson JS, Hofer EC, Bos N, Zimmerman A, Olson GM, Cooney D, Faniel I (2008) A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In: Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N (eds) Scientific collaboration on the internet, pp 73-99Google Scholar
  39. Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum-Comput Interact 15(2–3):139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J (2003) Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ Psychol 38(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pennington D (unpublished) Bridging the Cross-Disciplinary Divide: Co-Creating Research Ideas. Unpublished manuscript in reviewGoogle Scholar
  42. Pennington D (2008) Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecol Soc 13(2):8 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art8/ Google Scholar
  43. Pennington D (2010) The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative research teams. Comput Support Coop Work 19(2):175-199. doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9108-9. Available online at url: http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10606-010-9108-9 Google Scholar
  44. Pennington D, Athanasiadis IN, Bowers S, Krivov S, Madin J, Schildhauer M, Villa F (2008a) Indirectly-driven knowledge modeling in ecology. Int J Metadata Semant Ontol 3(3):210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pennington DD, Michener WK, Katz S, Downey L, Schildhauer M (2008b) Transforming scientists through technical education: a view from the trenches. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):28–33, Special Issue on High Performance Computing EducationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Grove JM (1999) Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Informat 14(6):700–707Google Scholar
  48. Porac JF, Wade JB et al (2004) Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: a comparative case study of two scientific teams. Res Policy 33:661–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Redman CL (1999) Human dimensions of ecosystem studies. Ecosystems 2:296–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reid SE, de Brentani U (2004) The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. J Prod Innov Manage 21:170–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhoten D (2003) Final report: a multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. San Francisco, CA, The Hybrid Vigor Institute, 82 ppGoogle Scholar
  52. Ribes D, Bowker GC (2008) Organizing for multidisciplinary collaboration: the case of GEON. In: Olson GM, Olson JS, Zimmerman A (eds) Science on the Internet. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Saab DJ (2009) A conceptual investigation of the ontological commensurability of spatial data infrastructures among different cultures. Earth Sci Inform 2:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schon DA (1990) The design process. In: Howard VA (ed) Varieties of thinking: essays from Harvard’s philosophy of education center. Routhledge, New York, pp 110–141Google Scholar
  56. Sidlauskas B, Ganapathy G, Hazkani-Covo E, Jenkins KP, Lapp H, McCall LW, Price S, Scherle R, Spaeth PA, Kidd DM (2009) Linking big: the continuing promise of evolutionary synthesis. Evolution 64–4:871–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spencer B, Butler R, Ricker K, Marcusiu D, Finholt T, Foster I, Kesselman C, Birnholtz J (2008) NEESgrid: lessons learned for future cyberinfrastructure development. In: Olson G, Bos N, Zimmerman A (eds) Scientific collaboration on the internet. MIT Press, Boston, pp 331–348Google Scholar
  58. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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(2S):S96–S115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sun H, Zhang P (2006) The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vera D, Crossan M (2005) Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organ Sci 16(3):203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Warr A, Lloyd S, Jirotka M, de la Flor G, Schroeder R, Rahman M (2007) Project management in e-Science, Technical Report. Oxford e-Research Centre, Oxford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  63. Wear DN (1999) Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2:299–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2):225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wenger EC, Snyder WM (1994) Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review on Organizational Learning, pp 139-145Google Scholar
  66. Williams P (2002) The competent boundary spanner. Public Adm 80(1):103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zimmerman A, Finholt TA (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, FloridaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations