A case study of strategies for fostering international, interdisciplinary research

  • K. E. Halvorsen
  • J. L. Knowlton
  • A. S. Mayer
  • C. C. Phifer
  • T. Martins
  • E. C. Pischke
  • T. S. Propato
  • P. Cavigliasso
  • C. Garcia
  • M. Chiappe
  • A. Eastmond
  • J. Licata
  • M. Kuhlberg
  • R. Medeiros
  • V. Picasso
  • G. Mendez
  • P. Primo
  • A. Frado
  • S. Veron
  • J. L. Dunn
Article

Abstract

Bringing together and successfully managing a highly interdisciplinary (ID) research team of socioeconomic, biophysical, and engineering scientists is highly challenging, particularly when that team includes 20 scientists and students across six countries. This paper reports on the results of evaluating the success of such a team as it studies the socioecological impacts of bioenergy development across the Americas. We find that the team has succeeded according to several different metrics. We demonstrate that the literature on accelerated sustainability transitions and small group team creation, development, and management holds valuable lessons for the success of ID teams.

Keywords

Team science Scientific team Group work Sustainability transitions Transition management Transdisciplinary 

References

  1. Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, Haas J, Gebbie KM (2007) Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research 42:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Accelerating and rescaling transitions to sustainability (ARTS) (2015) http://acceleratingtransitions.eu/ Access 14 June 2015
  3. Babbie ER (1993) The sociological spirit: critical essays in a critical science. Cengage Learning, Farmington Hills, MIGoogle Scholar
  4. Bales RF (1999) Social interaction systems: theory and measurement. Transaction Publisher, New Brunswick NJGoogle Scholar
  5. Balsiger PW (2004) Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures 36:407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barak, MEM (2013) Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  7. Batie SS (2008) Wicked problems and applied economics. American J of Agricultural Economics 90:1176–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batterman S, Eisenberg J, Hardin R, Kruk ME, Lemos MC, Michalak AM, Mukherjee B, Renne E, Stein H, Watkins C (2009) Sustainable control of water-related infectious diseases: a review and proposal for ID health-based systems research. Environmental Health Perspectives 117:1023–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett LM, Gadlin H (2012) Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med 60:768–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E (2000) When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: a meta-analysis. Small Group Research 31:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bracken LJ, Oughton EA (2006) ‘What do you mean?’ The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer GD (1999) The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences 32:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brower AM (1996) Group development as constructed social reality revisited: the constructivism of small groups. Families in Society 77:336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown J, Isaacs D (2005) The World Café: shaping our futures through conversations that matter (1st edition). CA, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell LM (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology 19:574–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology 46:823–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiocchio F, Essiembre H (2009) Cohesion and performance: a meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research 40:382–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choi S, Rainey HG (2010) Managing diversity in US federal agencies: effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review 70:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2007) Who works with whom? Collaborative tie strength in distributed interdisciplinary projects. Proceedings of the Third International eSocial Science Conference, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  22. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1999) Managing Earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary Challenge. Ecosystems 2:277–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Perez NA (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 57:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: The new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan James & James, Florence, KentuckyGoogle Scholar
  25. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PC, Newsham A, Jin L, Cortazzi M, Phillipson J, Blackstock K, Entwistle N, Sheate W, Armstrong F, Blackmore C, Fazey J, Ingram J, Gregson J, Lowe P, Morton S, Trevitt C (2013) Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation 40:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman DM (2000) Wicked water problems: sociology and local water organizations in addressing water resources policy. J of the American Water Resources Association 36:483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. Research Evaluation 22:134–144Google Scholar
  28. Garud R, Gehman J (2012) Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy 41:980–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gladstein DL (1984) Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29:499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Golde CM, Gallagher HA (1999) The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems 2(4):281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall TE, O’Rourke M (2014) Responding to communication challenges. In: Huutoniemi K, Tapio P (eds) transdisciplinary sustainability science. Routledge, Oxford, UK, pp 119–139Google Scholar
  33. Hall KL, AL Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S (2012) A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational behavioral medicine 2:415–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Halvorsen KE (2001) Relationships between national forest system employee diversity and beliefs regarding external interest groups. For Science 47:258–269Google Scholar
  35. Harris F, Lyon F, Clarke S (2009) Doing interdisciplinarity: motivation and collaboration in research for sustainable agriculture in the UK. Area 41:374–384Google Scholar
  36. Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy of Management J 41:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management J 45:1029–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heberlein TA (1988) Improving ID research: integrating the social and natural sciences. Society and Natural Resources 1:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holling CS (1998) Two cultures of ecology. Conservation Ecology 2:4Google Scholar
  40. House RJ, Baetz ML (1990) Leadership: some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In: Cummings LL, Staw BM (eds) Leadership, participation, and group behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich CT, pp 1–83Google Scholar
  41. Jørgensen U (2012) Mapping and navigating transitions—the multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Research Policy 41:996–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jury WA, Vaux H (2005) The role of science in solving the world’s emerging water problems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:15715–15720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of ID and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American J of Preventative Medicine 35:S116–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klug M, Bagrow JP (2014) Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.2893Google Scholar
  45. Knowlton JL, Halvorsen KE, Handler RM, O’Rourke M (2014) Teaching ID sustainability science teamwork skills to graduate students using in-person and web-based interactions. Sustainability 6:9428–9440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lach D, Rayner S, Ingram H (2005) Taming the waters: strategies to domesticate the wicked problems of water resource management. International J of Water 3:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lélé S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levi D (2013) Group dynamics for teams. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  49. Loorbach D (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  50. Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transition management: examples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures 42:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy 41:955–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mâsse LC, Moser RP, Stokols D, Taylor BK, Marcus SE, Morgan GD, Hall KL, Croyle RT, Trochim WM (2008) Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. American J of Preventative Medicine 35:151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McLeod PL, Lobel SA, Cox TH (1996) Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research 27:248–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller TR, Baird TD, Littlefield CM, Kofinas G, Chapin FS, Redman CL (2007) Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 13:46Google Scholar
  55. Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity on organizational groups. Acad Manage Rev 21:192–9Google Scholar
  56. Milojević S (2014) Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc of the National Acad of Sciences 111:3984–3989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morse WC, Nielsen-Pincus M, Force JE, Wulfhorst JD (2007) Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting ID graduate-student team research. Ecology & Society 12:8Google Scholar
  58. Norris P, O’Rourke M, Mayer A, Halvorsen KE (2015) Doubling Down: Transdisciplinary Research Team Formation as a Wicked Problem (in press)Google Scholar
  59. Nowak P, Bowen S, Cabot PE (2006) Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and biophysical systems. Society and Natural Resources 19:153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst, JD (Eds) (2013) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Thousand oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  61. Parker JN, Hackett EJ (2012) Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am Sociol Rev 77:21–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pennington DD, Simpson GL, McConnell MS, Fair JM, Baker RJ (2013) Transdisciplinary research, transformative learning, and transformative science. Bioscience 63:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pentland A (2012) The new science of building great teams. Harvard Bus Rev 90:60–70Google Scholar
  64. Repko AF (2012) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  65. Rotmans J (2005) Societal innovation: between dream and reality lies complexity. DRIFT Research Working Paper, Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  66. Rotmans J, Fischer-Kowalski M (2009) Conceptualizing, observing and influencing socio-ecological transitions. Ecology and Society 14:1–18Google Scholar
  67. Roy ED, Morzillo AT, Seijo F, Reddy SM, Rhemtulla JM, Milder JC, Kuemmerle T, Martin SL (2013) The elusive pursuit of interdisciplinarity at the human—environment interface. BioScience 63:745–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schensul JJ (2009) Community, culture and sustainability in multilevel dynamic systems intervention science. American J of Community Psychology 43:241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J of Management 32:29–54Google Scholar
  70. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP (2008a) The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American J of Preventive Medicine 35:S77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008b) The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American J of Preventative Medicine 35:96–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taramasco C, Cointet JP, Roth C (2010) Academic team formation as evolving hypergraphs. Scientometrics 85:721–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tuckman BW, Jensen MC (1977) Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies 2:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keytond J, Rafolse I, Börner K (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 5:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webber SS, Donahue LM (2001) Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J of Management 27:141–162Google Scholar
  76. Winberg C (2008) Teaching engineering/engineering teaching: Interdisciplinary collaboration and the construction of academic identities. Teach High Educ 13:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. E. Halvorsen
    • 1
  • J. L. Knowlton
    • 1
  • A. S. Mayer
    • 1
  • C. C. Phifer
    • 1
  • T. Martins
    • 2
  • E. C. Pischke
    • 1
  • T. S. Propato
    • 3
  • P. Cavigliasso
    • 4
  • C. Garcia
    • 5
  • M. Chiappe
    • 6
  • A. Eastmond
    • 7
  • J. Licata
    • 4
  • M. Kuhlberg
    • 8
  • R. Medeiros
    • 2
  • V. Picasso
    • 6
  • G. Mendez
    • 7
  • P. Primo
    • 6
  • A. Frado
    • 8
  • S. Veron
    • 9
  • J. L. Dunn
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  2. 2.Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroBrazil, Conservation InternationalRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.University of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.Instituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad MoreliaMoreliaMexico
  6. 6.Universidad de la RepúblicaMontevideoUruguay
  7. 7.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de YucatánMéridaMexico
  8. 8.Laurentian UniversitySudburyCanada
  9. 9.University of Buenos AiresInstituto Nacional de Tecnología AgropecuariaBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations