Negotiating boundaries, leadership, and integration and implementation sciences (I2S)

  • Gabriele Bammer


Imagine that you lead a team working on a complex environmental issue, that you are frustrated by the inability to easily obtain an overview of available resources, that you specifically require tools to manage the boundaries relevant to your project, and that you confront the challenge of figuring out how best to teach what you know to others. This commentary argues the case for a new discipline of Integration and Implementation Sciences (I2S) to (1) provide an overview of, and access to, all the tools and approaches used by others in tackling complex problems, (2) make it easy to find specific tools, for example, on setting the project boundaries and accommodating disciplinary colleagues and stakeholders with diverse views, and (3) provide an agreed method to document and transmit the detail of how complex problems are tackled, so that there is a more systematic way to self-reflect, learn from others, and teach. The main characteristics of I2S are described and its utility is demonstrated using the discipline of statistics as an analogy.


Integration and implementation sciences Complex real-world problems Boundaries Leadership Education Research 


  1. Bammer G (2008) Enhancing research collaboration: three key management challenges. Res Policy 37:875–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bammer G (2013a) Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and Implementation Sciences for researching complex real-world problems. ANU Press, Canberra,
  3. Bammer G (2013b) Scoping public health problems. In: Guest C, Ricciardi W, Kawachi I, Lang I (eds) Oxford handbook of public health practice, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 2–10Google Scholar
  4. Bennett LM, Levine-Finley S, Gadlin H (2010) Collaboration and team science: a field guide. NIH Publication NO. 10–7660, Bethesda, Maryland, . Accessed 12 August 2015 Google Scholar
  5. Burgman MA, McBride M, Ashton R, Speirs-Bridge A, Flander L, Wintle B, Fidler F, Rumpff L, Twardy C (2011) Expert status and performance. PLoS One 6(7):e22998, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods. ANU Press, Canberra, Google Scholar
  7. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Kluwer/Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Rourke M, Crowley S (2013) Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190:1937–1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pennington D, Bammer G, Danielson A, Gosselin D, Gouvea J, Habron G, Hawthorne D, Parnell R, Thompson K, Vincent S, Wei C (2015) The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis – this volume.Google Scholar
  10. Ulrich W (2005) A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). Web site of Werner Ulrich, 2005., . Accessed 12 August 2015 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population HealthThe Australian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations