Advertisement

Disciplinary Diversity in Teams: Integrative Approaches from Unidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity

  • Michael O’RourkeEmail author
  • Stephen Crowley
  • Bethany Laursen
  • Brian Robinson
  • Stephanie E. Vasko
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we highlight research that illuminates the challenge of disciplinary diversity as well as research that describes effective responses to this challenge. After a few preliminary remarks, we unfold this challenge in three steps. First, we discuss the process of identifying relevant disciplinary resources. Second, we examine what it is for a team to be ready to marshal these resources in integrative, cross-disciplinary team science. Finally, we discuss the process of combining, or integrating, these resources in a research project.

Keywords

Unidisciplinary Multidisciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary Integration Capacity Disciplinary diversity Expertise Readiness Technology 

References

  1. Andersen H, Wagenknecht S. Epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary groups. Synthese. 2013;190(11):1881–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade HB, de los Reyes López H, Martín TB. Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the academic research groups’ scientific quality. Res Eval. 2009;18(4):301–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews AC, Clawson RA, Gramig BM, Raymond L. Finding the right value: framing effects on domain experts. Political Psychol. 2016;38:261.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong A, Jackson-Smith D. Forms and levels of integration: evaluation of an interdisciplinary team-building project. J Res Pract. 2013;9(1):M1. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/335/297Google Scholar
  5. August PV, Swift JM, Kellogg DQ, Page G, Nelson P, Opaluch J, Cobb JS, Foster C, Gold AJ. The T assessment tool: a simple metric for assessing multidisciplinary graduate education. J Nat Res Life Sci Educ. 2010;39:15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bammer G. Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Canberra: ANU E-Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bechtel W. From molecules to behavior and the clinic: integration in chronobiology. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechtel W, Richardson R. Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benda LE, Poff LN, Tague C, Palmer MA, Pizzuto J, Cooper S, et al. How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. Bioscience. 2002;52(12):1127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med. 2012;60(5):768–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. Supporting interdisciplinary collaboration: the role of the institution. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 356–84.Google Scholar
  12. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Collaboration and team science: a field guide. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health; 2010.Google Scholar
  13. Benor DE. Interdisciplinary integration in medical education: theory and method. Med Educ. 1982;16:355–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. bepress. Digital commons three-tiered list of academic disciplines. 2017. https://www.bepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Digital-Commons-Disciplines-taxonomy-2017-01.pdf
  15. Berger G. Opinions and facts. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G, editors. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1972. p. 21–74.Google Scholar
  16. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E. Methods for transdisciplinary research. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag; 2012.Google Scholar
  17. Blackwell GW. Multidisciplinary team research. Soc Forces. 1955;33:367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Boden M. What is interdisciplinarity? In: Cunningham R, editor. Interdisciplinarity and the organization of knowledge in Europe. Luxembourg: European Communities; 1999. p. 13–24.Google Scholar
  19. Boix Mansilla V. Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Res Eval. 2006;15(1):17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boix Mansilla V. Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C, editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 288–306.Google Scholar
  21. Boix Mansilla V, Gardner H. Assessing interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration of “symptoms of quality”. In: GoodWork project report series, vol. 26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K. Shared cognitive-emotional-interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2015;41:1–42.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915614103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bosque-Pérez NA, Klos PZ, Force JE, Waits LP, Cleary K, Rhoades P, Galbraith SM, Bentley Brymer AL, O’Rourke M, Eigenbrode SD, Finegan B, Wulfhorst JD, Sibelet N, Holbrook JD. A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education. BioScience. . http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/04/08/biosci.biw042. 2016;66:477.  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bracken LJ, Oughton EA. ‘What do you mean?’ The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2006;31(3):371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brewer GD. The challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sci. 1999;32:327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brigandt I. Beyond reduction and pluralism: toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis. 2010;73:295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brigandt I. Integration in biology: philosophical perspectives on the dynamics of interdisciplinarity. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bruce A, Lyall C, Tait J, Williams R. Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the fifth framework programme. Futures. 2004;36:457–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Campbell LM. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv Biol. 2005;19:574–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Carew AL, Wickson F. The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures. 2010;42:1146–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC, Hanson PC, Goring SJ, Filstrup CT, Read EK. Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12(1):31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Collins HM, Evans R. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci. 2002;32(2):235–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Connaughton SL, Shuffler M. Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: a review and future agenda. Small Group Res. 2007;38(3):387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Contractor N. Some assembly required: leveraging web science to understand and enable team assembly. Phil Trans R Soc A. 2013;371:20120385.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Cooke NJ, Hilton ML. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  36. Cosens B, Fiedler F, Boll J, Higgins L, Johnson G, Kennedy B, Strand E, Wilson P. Interdisciplinary methods in water resources. Issues Integr Studies. 2011;29:118–43.Google Scholar
  37. Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, O'Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD. Introduction. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.Google Scholar
  38. DMP Tool. California Digital Library. University of California. 2017. https://www.cdlib.org/services/uc3/dmpt.html.
  39. Darden L, Maull N. Interfield theories. Philos Sci. 1977;44:43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. De Grandis G, Efstathiou S. Introduction—grand challenges and small steps. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2016;56:39–47.Google Scholar
  41. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL. The role of trust in organizational settings. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):450–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Donovan SM, O’Rourke M, Looney C. Your hypothesis or mine? Terminological and conceptual variation across disciplines. SAGE Open. 2015;5(2):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Duhigg C. What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine, (the work issue). 2016. http://nyti.ms/20WG1yY
  44. Eddy SR. “Antedisciplinary” science. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005;1(1):e6.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Edmondson AC. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Eigenbrode S, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Pérez NA. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience. 2007;57:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Elliott KC, Cheruvelil KS, Montgomery GM, Soranno PA. Conceptions of good science in our data-rich world. Bioscience. 2016;66(10):880–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, Keyton J, et al. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res Eval. 2011;20(2):145–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Fauconnier G. Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fiore SM, Carter DR, Asencio R. Conflict, trust, and cohesion: examining affective and attitudinal factors in science teams. In: Salas E, Vessey WB, Estrada AX, editors. Team cohesion: advances in psychological theory, methods and practice. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2015. p. 271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fiore SM, Gabelica C, Wiltshire T, Stokols D. Training to be a (Team) scientist. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 421–444.Google Scholar
  52. Fisher SG, Hunter TA, Macrosson WDK. Team or group? Managers’ perceptions of the differences. J Manag Psychol. 1997;12(4):232–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fisher E, O’Rourke M, Evans R, Kennedy EB, Gorman ME, Seager TP. Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. J Responsible Innovation. 2015;2(1):39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Fuqua J, Stokols D, Gress J, Phillips K, Harvey R. Transdisciplinary collaboration as a basis for enhancing the science and prevention of substance use and “abuse”. Subst Use Misuse. 2004;39(10–12):1457–514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Gandomi A, Haider M. Beyond the hype: big data concepts, methods, and analytics. Int J Inf Manag. 2015;35(2):137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gardner S. Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: a qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability science. Sustain Sci. 2013;8(2):241–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gerson EM. Integration of specialties: an institutional and organizational view. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:515–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gewin V. Recipe for a team: a scientific collaboration is vulnerable to derailment unless members learn to trust each other at the outset. Nature. 2015;523:245–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Grantham TA. Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science. Philos Sci. 2004;71:133–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gray SA, Zanre E, Gray SRJ. Fuzzy cognitive maps as representations of mental models and group beliefs. In: Fuzzy cognitive maps for applied sciences and engineering, vol. 54. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. p. 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Green S, Wolkenhauer O. Integration in action. EMBO Rep. 2012;13:769–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Hall KL, Crowston K, Vogel AL. How to write a collaboration plan. Draft. 2014. https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/public/TSResourceBiblio.aspx?tid=3&rid=3119
  63. Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, Taylor BK, Thornquist MD, Nebeling LC, Ehret CC, Barnett MJ, McTiernan A, Berger NA, Goran MI, Jeffery RW. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC year-one evaluation study. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2S):S161–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Hall KL, Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S. A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2:415–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Hall KL, Vogel AL, Crowston K. Comprehensive collaboration plans: practical considerations spanning from individual collaborators to institutional supports. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 587–611.Google Scholar
  66. Hall KL, O’Rourke M. Responding to communication challenges in transdisciplinary sustainability science. In: Huutoniemi K, Tapio P, editors. Transdisciplinary sustainability studies: a heuristic approach. New York, NY: Routledge; 2014. p. 119–39.Google Scholar
  67. Heckhausen H. Discipline and interdisciplinarity. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G, editors. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1972. p. 83–90.Google Scholar
  68. Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M. Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv Ecol. 2003;7(3):8. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art8/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hirsch PD, Brosius JP. Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: an integrative framework. Issues Integr Studies. 2013;31:99–122.Google Scholar
  70. Holbrook JB. What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese. 2013;190:1865–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Huutoniemi K. Introduction: sustainability, transdisciplinarity and the complexity of knowing. In: Huutoniemi K, Tapio P, editors. Transdisciplinary sustainability science: a heuristic approach. Oxon/New York: Routledge; 2014. p. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H, Hukkinen J. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res Policy. 2010;39:79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jahn T. Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In: Bergmann M, Schramm E, editors. Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt Campus: Verlag; 2008. p. 21–37.Google Scholar
  74. Jantsch E. Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G, editors. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1972. p. 97–121.Google Scholar
  75. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci. 1999;10(6):791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Jessop B, Sum N. Pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary perspectives. New Political Economy. 2001;6(1):89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kane M, Trochim WMK. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Limited; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Karlqvist A. Going beyond disciplines: the meanings of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sci. 1999;32:379–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Keyton J. Relational communication in groups. In: Frey LR, Gouran DS, Poole MS, editors. The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999. p. 192–222.Google Scholar
  80. Kirschner PA, Buckingham Shum SJ, Carr CS. Visualizing argumentation. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.Google Scholar
  81. Klein JT. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  82. Klein JT. Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2S):S116–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Klein JT. A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C, editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 15–30.Google Scholar
  84. Klein JT. Research integration: a comparative knowledge base. In: Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R, editors. Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2012. p. 283–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Klein JT. Communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 11–30.Google Scholar
  86. Klein JT. Discourses of transdisciplinarity: looking back to the future. Futures. 2014;63:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Klein JT, Newell W. Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In: Gaff J, Ratcliff J, editors. Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1996. p. 393–415.Google Scholar
  88. Kline SJ. Conceptual foundations for multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  89. Knorr Cetina K. Culture in global knowledge societies: knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdiscip Sci Rev. 2007;32(4):361–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kötter R, Balsiger PW. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: a constant challenge to the sciences. Issues Integr Studies. 1999;17:87–120.Google Scholar
  91. Kozlowski SWJ. Advancing research on team process dynamics: theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organ Psychol Rev. 2015;5(4):270–99.Google Scholar
  92. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Evidence-based principles and strategies for optimizing team functioning and performance in science teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 269–293.Google Scholar
  93. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.Google Scholar
  94. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 2012;7(Suppl 1):25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Laursen B. Explicating and negotiating bias in interdisciplinary argumentation using abductive tools. Presented at the Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias Eleventh Annual International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario, Canada; 2016. pp. 1–8. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/
  96. Leavy P. Essentials of transdisciplinary research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  97. Lele S, Norgaard RB. Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience. 2005;55(11):967–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Leonelli S. Integrating data to acquire new knowledge: three modes of integration in plant science. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:503–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Leonelli S, Ankeny RA. Repertoires: how to transform a project into a research community. Bioscience. 2015;65(7):701–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Lotrecchiano GR, Mallinson TR, Leblanc-Beaudoin T, Schwartz LS, Lazar D, Falk-Krzesinski HJ. Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis. Heliyon. 2016;2(5):e00105.Google Scholar
  101. Lynch J. It’s not easy being interdisciplinary. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1119–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev. 2001;26(3):356–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P. Research integration using dialogue methods. Canberra: Australian National University Press; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. McGrath JE. Social psychology: a brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1964.Google Scholar
  105. Miller RC. Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences: a 1981 overview. Issues Integr Studies. 1982;1:1–37.Google Scholar
  106. Mirel B, Luo A, Harris M. Research infrastructure for collaborative team science: challenges in technology-supported workflows in and across laboratories, institutions, and geographies. Semin Nephrol. 2015;35(3):291–302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. Misra S, Stokols D, Cheng L. The transdisciplinary orientation scale: factor structure and relation to the integrative quality and scope of scientific publications. J Transl Med Epidemiol. 2015;3(2):1042–51.Google Scholar
  108. Mitchell SD. Integrative pluralism. Biol Philos. 2002;17:55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Monteiro M, Keating E. Managing misunderstandings: the role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Sci Commun. 2009;31(1):6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Morrison JL. Conceptual integration in online interdisciplinary study: current perspectives, theories, and implications for future research. Int Rev Res Open Distributed Learn. 2003;4:2. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Morse WC. Integration of frameworks and theories across disciplines for effective cross-disciplinary communication. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 244–70.Google Scholar
  112. Morse WC, Nielsen-Pincus M, Force JE, Wulfhorst JD. Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecol Soc. 2007;12(2):8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art8/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Murphy BL. From interdisciplinary to inter-epistemological approaches: confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. Can Geogr. 2011;55(44):490–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  115. National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH data sharing policy and implementation guidance. 2003. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
  116. National Science Foundation (NSF). Data management & sharing frequently asked questions (FAQs). 2010. https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmpfaqs.jspGoogle Scholar
  117. Newell WH. A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues Integr Studies. 2001;19:1–25.Google Scholar
  118. Newell WH. Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In: Morçöl G, editor. Handbook of decision making. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis; 2007. p. 245–64.Google Scholar
  119. Nissani M. Fruits, salads, and smoothies: a working definition of interdisciplinarity. J Educ Thought. 1995;2:121–8.Google Scholar
  120. Norris PE, O’Rourke M, Mayer AS, Halvorsen KE. Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;154:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. O’Rourke M. Comparing methods for cross-disciplinary research. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Dos Santos Pacheco R, editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 276–90.Google Scholar
  122. O’Rourke M, Crowley S. Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the toolbox project. Synthese. 2013;190:1937–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Gonnerman C. On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: a philosophical framework. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2016;56:62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Ohlhorst D, Schön S. Constellation analysis as a means of interdisciplinary innovation research–theory formation from the bottom up. Hist Soc Res. 2015;40(3):258–78.Google Scholar
  125. Okada A, Buckingham Shum SJ, Sherborne T. Knowledge cartography: software tools and mapping techniques. 2nd ed. London: Springer; 2014.Google Scholar
  126. Olabisi LS, Blythe S, Ligmann-Zielinska A, Marquart-Pyatt S. Modeling as a tool for cross-disciplinary communication in solving environmental problems. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 271–90.Google Scholar
  127. Olson GM, Olson JS. Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact. 2000;15(2/3):139–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Olson J, Olson G. How to make distance work. Interactions. 2014;XXI(2):28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Osbeck LM, Nersessian NJ. Forms of positioning in interdisciplinary science practice and their epistemic effects. J Theory Soc Behav. 2010;40(2):136–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Palmer MA, Kramer JG, Boyd J, Hawthorne D. Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2016;19:111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Patterson ME, Williams DR. Paradigms and problems: the practice of social science in natural resource management. Soc Nat Res Int J. 1998;11(3):279–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Petrie HG. Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Educ Res. 1976;5(2):9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Phillipson J, Lowe P, Bullock JM. Navigating the social sciences: interdisciplinarity and ecology. J Appl Ecol. 2009;46:261–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Piaget J. The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G, editors. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1972. p. 127–39.Google Scholar
  135. Piso Z. Integration, language, and practice: Wittgenstein and interdisciplinary communication. Issues Interdisciplinary Studies. 2015;33:14–38.Google Scholar
  136. Piso Z, O’Rourke M, Weather KC. Out of the fog: catalyzing integrative capacity in interdisciplinary research. Stud Hist Phil Sci. 2016;56:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Plutynski A. Cancer and the goals of integration. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci. 2013;44:466–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Pohl C. From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Pol. 2008;11:46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G. Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Munich: Oekom Verlag; 2007.Google Scholar
  140. Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L, Hirsch Hadorn G, Bammer G. Integration. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffman-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 411–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Ramadier T. Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies. Futures. 2004;36:423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manag. 2010;91:1766–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Read EK, O’Rourke M, Hong GS, Hanson PC, Winslow LA, Crowley S, Brewer CA, Weathers KC. Building the team for team science. Ecosphere. 2016;7(3):e01291.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Repko AF. Integrating interdisciplinarity: how the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues Integrative Studies. 2007;25:1–31.Google Scholar
  145. Repko AF. Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  146. Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4(2):155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Rosas J, Camarinha-Matos LM. An approach to assess collaboration readiness. Int J Prod Res. 2009;47(17):4711–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Rosenfield PL. The potential for transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med. 1992;35(11):1343–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  149. Rossini FA, Porter AL. Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research. Res Policy. 1979;8:70–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Rylance R. Global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature. 2015;525:313–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  151. Salazar MR, Lant TK, Fiore SM, Salas E. Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Res. 2012;43(5):527–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Salazar M, Widmer K, Doiron K, Lant T. Leader integrative capabilities: a catalyst for effective interdisciplinary teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 313–328.Google Scholar
  153. Shalinsky W. Polydisciplinary groups in the human services. Small Group Behav. 1989;20(2):203–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM. Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol. 2011;26(2):315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci. 1989;19(387–420):393.Google Scholar
  156. Stember M. Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. Soc Sci J. 1991;28(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Stokols D. Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 56–81.Google Scholar
  158. Stokols D, Fuqua J, Gress J, Harvey R, Phillips K, Baezcondi-Garbanati L, et al. Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:S21–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  159. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2S):S77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Strober M. Interdisciplinary conversations: challenging habits of thought. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  161. Szostak R. Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer; 2004.Google Scholar
  162. Szostak R. Communicating complex concepts. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013. p. 271–90.Google Scholar
  163. Szostak R, Gnoli C, López-Huertas M. Interdisciplinary knowledge organizations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Thompson JL. Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. J Appl Commun Res. 2009;37(3):278–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Tress G, Tress B, Fry G. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol. 2004;20:479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Trochim W, Kane M. Concept-mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17:187–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  167. Turner M. Cognitive dimensions of social science. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  168. United States Department of Energy (DOE). Statement on digital data management. 2014. http://science.energy.gov/funding-opportunities/digital-data-management/Google Scholar
  169. van der Steen WJ. Towards disciplinary disintegration in biology. Biol Philos. 1993;8:259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. van Noorden R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature. 2015;525:306–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  171. Vogel AL, Feng A, Oh A, Hall KL, Stipelman BA, Stokols D, Okamoto J, Perna FM, Moser R, Nebeling L. Influence of a National Cancer Institute transdisciplinary research and training initiative on trainees’ transdisciplinary research competencies and scholarly productivity. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2:459–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  172. Wear DN. Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems. 1999;2:299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Webne-Behrman H. The practice of facilitation. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing; 1998.Google Scholar
  174. Weingart P. A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C, editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 3–14.Google Scholar
  175. Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures. 2006;38:1046–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Winowiecki L, Smukler S, Shirley K, Remans R, Peltier G, Lothes E, King E, Comita L, Baptista S, Alkema L. Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sci Pract Policy. 2011;7:74–80.Google Scholar
  177. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316:1036–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  178. Zierhofer W, Burger P. Disentangling transdisciplinarity: an analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Sci Stud. 2007;20(1):51–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MSU Center for InterdisciplinarityMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Toolbox Dialogue InitiativeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of Philosophy and AgBioResearchMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhilosophyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  5. 5.Department of Community SustainabilityCollege of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  6. 6.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  7. 7.Laursen Evaluation & DesignLLCGrand RapidsUSA
  8. 8.Department of History, Political Science, and PhilosophyTexas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations