Collaborative Processes in Transdisciplinary Research

  • Shalini Misra
  • Kara Hall
  • Annie Feng
  • Brooke Stipelman
  • Daniel Stokols


It has been widely acknowledged in recent years that if we are to achieve a coherent comprehension of the world and its enormous social, environmental, and public health problems we must make linkages between bodies of scientific knowledge and the social and political realities that generate them. Nearly eight decades after Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset noted the limits of specialization and the organization of knowledge into rigidly defined disciplinary boundaries, transdisciplinary (TD) collaboration is coming to be recognized as an essential strategy for understanding and resolving the complex urban public health challenges of our time (e.g., health disparities, AIDS, and heart disease).


Team Member Capacity Factor Collaborative Process Team Science Disciplinary Perspective 



The authors thank the editors for the helpful comments on earlier versions of the chapter.


  1. Abrams, D. B., Leslie, F. M., Mermelstein, R., Kobus, K., & Clayton, R.R. (2003). Transdisciplinary tobacco use research. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl.1), S5–S10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, T. (1984). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology, 14, 526–536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bawden, D., Holtham, C., & Courtney, N. (1999). Perspectives on information overload. Aslib Proceedings, 51, 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennis, W. (1997). The secrets of great groups. Leader to Leader, 3, 29–33.Google Scholar
  6. Brainard, J. (2002, March 29). New science measures released by OMB. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, A25.Google Scholar
  7. Brill, M., & Weidemann, S. (2001). Disproving widespread myths about workspace design. Buffalo, NY: BOSTI Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 315–330.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., & Linton, M. (2003). Asia – The new frontier for HIV/AIDS. Science, 301(5460), 1650–1655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129–169.Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008, November 8–12). Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Work 2008, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  12. David, P. A., & Spence, M. (2003). Towards Institutional Infrastructures for E-Science: The scope of the challenge. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farhoomand, A. F., & Druiy, D. H. (2002). Managerial information overload. Communications of the ACM, 45(10), 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finholt, T. A., Rocco, E., Bree, D., Jain, N., & Herbsleb, J. (1998). NotMeeting: A field trial of NetMeeting in a geographically distributed organization. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 21(1), 66–69.Google Scholar
  16. Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinary as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39, 251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuqua, J., Stokols, D., Gress, J., Phillips, K., & Harvey, R. (2004). Transdisciplinary scientific collaboration as a basis for enhancing the science and prevention of substance use and abuse. Substance Use and Misuse, 39(10–12), 1457–1514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gadlin, H., & Jessar, K. (2002, May–June). “Preempting discord: Prenuptial agreements for scientists.” The NIH Catalyst. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from
  19. Gonzalez, V. M., & Mark, G. (2005, September 18–22). Managing currents of work: Multi-tasking among multiple collaborations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th European Conference of Computer-supported Cooperative Work, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, B. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440.Google Scholar
  21. Gray, B. (2008). Enhancing transdisciplinarity research through collaborative leadership. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S124–S132).Google Scholar
  22. Gruman, J., & Prager, D. (2002). Health research philanthropy in a time of plenty: A strategic agenda. Health Affairs, 21(5), 265–269.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward: Collaboration and creativity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S243–S249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Moser, R. P., Taylor, B. K., Thornquist, M., Nebeling, L., et al. (2008). The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC year-one evaluation study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S161–S172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamkalo, B. A., Alexopoulos, N. G., Brant, D. A., Bryant, S. V., Huff, C. R., Leslie, F. M., et al. (2000, August). Overcoming Barriers to Multidisciplinary Research. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from
  26. Havemann, F. (2001). Collaboration behavior of Berlin life science researchers in the last two decades of the twentieth century as reflected in the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 52(3), 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hays, T. (2008). The science of team science: Commentary on measurements of scientific readiness. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S193–S195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahn, R. L. (1993). MacArthur Foundation, Program in Mental Health and Human Development. A MacArthur Foundation Occasional Paper. In An experiment in scientific organization. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Kahn, R. L., & Prager, D. J. (1994). Interdisciplinary collaborations are scientific and social imperative. The Scientist, 8(14), 12.Google Scholar
  31. Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation and Gaming, 36(3), 330–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kessel, F. S., & Rosenfield, P. L. (2008). Toward transdisciplinary research: Historical and contemporary perspectives. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S225–S234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kessel, F. S., Rosenfield, P. L., & Anderson, N. B. (Eds.). (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Case studies from health and social science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplines, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluating interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborative research: A review of the state of the art. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S116–S123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumpfer, K. L., Turner, C., Hopkins, R., & Librett, J. (1993). Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 359–374.Google Scholar
  38. Lantz, P. M., Viruell-Fuentes, E., Israel, B. A., Softley, D., & Guzman, R. (2001). Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluations results from a community based participatory research partnership in Detroit. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(3), 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawrence, R. J., & Despres, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Mark, G. (2002). Extreme collaboration. Communications of the ACM, 45(6), 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005, April 2–7). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  43. Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, K. (2008). Successful collaborations: Helping biomedicine and computation play well together. Biomedical Computation Review, Summer, 7–15.Google Scholar
  45. Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Misra, S. (2010). The qualities of virtual life: A theoretical and empirical investigation. PhD dissertation, Department of Planning, Policy, and Design, School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  47. Morgan, G., Kobus, K., Gerlach, K. K., Neighbors, C., Lerman, C., Abrams, D. B., et al. (2003). Facilitating transdisciplinary research: The experience of the transdisciplinary tobacco use research centers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl. 1), S11–S19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Nash, J. M. (2008). Transdisciplinary training: Key components and prerequisites for success. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S133–S140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Nass, S. J., Stillman, B., & Ebrary Inc. (2003). Large-scale biomedical science: Exploring strategies for future research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. National Academy of Sciences. (2003). The NAS/Keck Initiative to Transform Interdisciplinary Research. Retrieved July 18, 2003, from
  51. National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  52. National Institutes of Health. (2002). Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities: RFA ES-02-009. Retrieved July 31, 2010, from
  53. National Institutes of Health. (2003). NIH Roadmap–Accelerating medical discovery to improve health: Interdisciplinary research. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
  54. Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15, 139–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Orringer, E. (2008). A look into the future and the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary careers. Panel presented at workshop From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  56. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1932). The barbarism of “specialization.” In The revolt of the masses (pp. 107–114). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. (Original work published in 1930).Google Scholar
  57. Pellmar, T. C., & Eisenberg, L. (Eds.). (2000). Bridging disciplines in the brain, behavioral, and clinical sciences. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine/National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report: A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Retrieved October 10, 2003, from
  59. Rhoten, D., & Parker, A. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306, 2046.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems–CHI'98, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine, 35, 1343–1357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Shen, B. (2008). Toward cross-sectoral team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S240–S242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration: A synthesis of challenges and strategies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 4.Google Scholar
  64. Steele, F. (1986). Making and managing high-quality workplaces: An organizational ecology. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stokols, D. (1998). The future of interdisciplinarity in the School of Social Ecology. Retrieved March 25, 2005, from
  66. Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 63–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., et al. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl. 1), S21–S39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S77–S89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Stokols, D., Harvey, R., Gress, J., Fuqua, J., & Phillips, K. (2005). In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration: Lessons learned and implications for active living research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 202–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S96–S115.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Su, N. M., & Mark, G. (2008, April 5–10). Communication chains and multitasking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of CHI, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  72. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilson, P. (1996). Interdisciplinary research and information overload (Navigating among the disciplines: The Library and Interdisciplinary Inquiry). Library Trends, 45(2), 192–203.Google Scholar
  74. Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69, 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wuchty, S., Jones, D. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science Express, pp. 1–4, DOI: 10.1126/Science(1136099)Google Scholar
  76. Zerhouni, E. A. (2005). Translational and clinical science–time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(15), 1621–1623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shalini Misra
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kara Hall
    • 2
  • Annie Feng
    • 2
  • Brooke Stipelman
    • 2
  • Daniel Stokols
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.School of Social EcologyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations