“Interface” organizations are groups created to foster the use of science in environmental policy, management, and education. Here we compare interface organizations that differ in spatial scale, modes of operation, and intended audience to illustrate their diversity and importance in promoting the application of science to environmental issues. There has been exciting recent growth in the nature and extent of activities by interface organizations and in new methods for science communication and engagement. These developments can help scientists – who face personal and institutional challenges when attempting to convey the results of their research to various audiences – interact with society on specific issues in specific places, and with a wide range of non‐traditional audiences. The ongoing mission for these organizations should be to move beyond simply increasing awareness of environmental problems to the creation of solutions that result in genuine environmental improvements.

Cross-disciplinary research is necessary to solve many complex problems that affect society today, including problems involving linked social and environmental systems. Examples include natural resource management or scarcity problems, problematic effects of climate change, and environmental pollution issues. Intercultural research teams are needed to address many complex environmental matters as they often cross geographic and political boundaries, and involve people of different countries and cultures. It follows that disciplinarily and culturally diverse research teams have been organized to investigate and address environmental issues. This case study investigates a team composed of both monolingual and bilingual Chilean and US university researchers who are geoscientists, engineers and economists. The objective of this research team was to study both the natural and human parts of a hydrologic system in a hyper-arid region in northern Chile. Interviews (n = 8) addressed research questions focusing on the interaction of cross-disciplinary diversity and cultural diversity during group integration and development within the team. The case study revealed that the group struggled more with cross-disciplinary challenges than with intercultural ones. Particularly challenging ones were instances the of disciplinary crosstalk, or hidden misunderstandings, where team members thought they understood their cross-disciplinary colleagues, when in reality they did not. Results showed that translation served as a facilitator to cross-disciplinary integration of the research team. The use of translation in group meetings as a strategy for effective cross-disciplinary integration can be extended to monolingual cross-disciplinary teams as well.