Risks and Rewards of an Interdisciplinary Research Path

Rhoten, Diana; Parker, Andrew

doi:10.1126/science.1103628

Cited by 300 publications

(261 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

242

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the substantial amount of federal and private resources that have been allocated to establish and maintain team science initiatives, it is essential that concerted efforts be made to evaluate both their near-, mid-, and longerterm collaborative processes and outcomes. [12][13][14] The science-of-team-science field is at a relative early stage in its development and can benefit from the development of psychometrically valid and reliable measures of collaborative processes, especially those involving cross-disciplinary synergy and integration. As these initial collaborative processes may be integrally linked to the achievement of subsequent and farreaching benefits to science and society, it is important to develop reliable and valid measures of these con-structs early-on as a basis for evaluating their influence on the cumulative contributions of a team initiative over a longer period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary Integration in Team Science

Mâsse

Moser

Stokols

et al. 2008

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

149

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:As the science of team science evolves, the development of measures that assess important processes related to working in transdisciplinary teams is critical. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present the psychometric properties of scales measuring collaborative processes and transdisciplinary integration. Methods:Two hundred-sixteen researchers and research staff participating in the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURC) Initiative completed the TTURC researcher survey. Confirmatory-factor analyses were used to verify the hypothesized factor structures. Descriptive data pertinent to these scales and their associations with other constructs were included to further examine the properties of the scales. Results:Overall, the hypothesized-factor structures, with some minor modifications, were validated. A total of four scales were developed, three to assess collaborative processes (satisfaction with the collaboration, impact of collaboration, trust and respect) and one to assess transdisciplinary integration. All scales were found to have adequate internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach ␣'s were all Ͼ0.70); were correlated with intermediate markers of collaborations (e.g., the collaboration and transdisciplinary-integration scales were positively associated with the perception of a center's making good progress in creating new methods, new science and models, and new interventions); and showed some ability to detect group differences.Conclusions: This paper provides valid tools that can be utilized to examine the underlying processes of team science-an important step toward advancing the science of team science.(Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S151-S160)

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary Integration in Team Science

Mâsse

Moser

Stokols

et al. 2008

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

149

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These internal conflicts can impede one's ability to adequately share information, trust a team or network, and even hamper the advancement of a science program especially if knowledge is withheld as a result of such insecurities . Loss aversion (Fox & Faver, 1984;Georghiou, 1988;Sonnenwald, 2007), lack of recognition and reward (Dasgupta & David, 1994;Turpin & Garrett-Jones, 2010), concerns about achieving promotion and tenure (Carayol & Thi, 2005;Coleman, 1986;Harris, Lyon, & Clarke, 2009;Horlick-Jones & Sime, 2004;Maglaughlin & Sonnenwald, 2005;Rhoten & Parker, 2004;Zucker, 2012), and authorship embattlements (Barrett, Funk, & Macrina, 2005;Lewis, Ross, & Holden, 2012;Stokols et al, 2008) are just a few of the issues that can ensue from within a scientific team that struggles with diverse attitudes about knowledge sharing.…”

Section: Attitudes About Ownership Of Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Potterbusch

Lotrecchiano

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This paper explores the implications of machine-mediated communication on human interaction in cross-disciplinary teams. The authors explore the relationships between Open Science Theory, its contributions to team science, and the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting open science principles. Background: Open Science Theory impacts many aspects of human interaction throughout the scholarly life cycle and can be seen in action through various technologies, which each typically touch only one such aspect. By serving multiple aspects of Open Science Theory at once, the Open Science Framework (OSF) serves as an exemplar technology. As such it illustrates how Open Science Theory can inform and expand cognitive and behavioral dynamics in teams at multiple levels in a single tool. Methodology: This concept paper provides a theoretical rationale for recommendations for exploring the connections between an open science paradigm and the dynamics of team communication. As such theory and evidence have been culled to initiate a synthesis of the nascent literature, current practice and theory. Contribution: This paper aims to illuminate the shared goals between open science and the study of teams by focusing on science team activities (data management, methods, algorithms, and outputs) as focal objects for further combined study. Findings: Team dynamics and characteristics that will affect successful human/machine assisted interactions through mediators of workflow culture, attitudes about ownership of knowledge, readiness to share openly, shifts from group-driven to user-driven functionality, group-organizing to self-organizing structures, and the development of trust as teams regulate between traditional and open science dissemination. Recommendations for Practitioners: Participation in open science practices through machine-assisted technologies in team projects/scholarship should be encouraged. Recommendation for Researchers: The information provided highlights areas in need of further study in team science as well as new primary sources of material in the study of teams utilizing machine-assisted methods in their work. Impact on Society: As researchers take on more complex social problems, new technology and open science practices can complement the work of diverse stakeholders while also providing opportunities to broaden impact and intensify scholarly contributions. Future Research: Future investigation into the cognitive and behavioral research conducted with teams that employ machine-assisted technologies in their workflows would offer researchers the opportunity to understand better the relationships between intelligent machines and science teams’ impacts on their communities as well as the necessary paradigmatic shifts inherent when utilizing these technologies.

show abstract

“…Working with government, industry, and non-governmental organizations has allowed me to learn how to apply science to real-world problems. ese rewards have been personal and intellectual, and research on interdisciplinarity suggests that such intrinsic rewards are commonly expressed as motivators for those who engage in research outside their home discipline (Campbell, 2005;Rhoten, 2004;Rhoten & Parker, 2004). Furthermore, the ability to collaborate across disciplines has also been identified as a critical skill for conservation careers outside academia (Blickley et al, 2012;Edwards & Gibeau, 2013).…”

Section: So Why Conduct Interdisciplinary (And "Applied") Research?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another perceived disadvantage is that engaging in interdisciplinary work is risky for early-career scientists, at least those aiming for a career in academia (Metzger & Zare, 1999;Rhoten & Parker, 2004). is disadvantage is likely due to the fact that researchers engaged in interdisciplinary work oen must spend time learning new terminology and/or techniques and spend energy in figuring out how to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries (Campbell, 2005;Golde & Gallagher, 1999).…”

Section: Challenges To Interdisciplinary Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Kind of Scientist Are You? Science and Interdisciplinary Research

Wiersma

2013

SRC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research that crosses disciplinary boundaries (“interdisciplinary research”) – and in particular, research that crosses academic boundaries to engage with industry, government and non-government agencies, and the broader public – can be rewarding personally and yield novel approaches and findings. While the scholarly literature suggests that interdisciplinary approaches are of immense value, interdisciplinary research carries challenges to academics, particularly in terms of funding and in relation to finding an academic “home.” In this article, the author outlines what is meant by interdisciplinary research and reflects on her career leading from graduate school to tenure. She illustrates how the interdisciplinary projects she has been involved in have been both rewarding and challenging. While not every scientist must be interdisciplinary, she concludes that being open to such an approach has many advantages.La recherche scientifique qui dépasse les frontières disciplinaires (la recherche « interdisciplinaire ») —et, particulièrement, celle qui dépasse les frontières académiques pour s’engager avec l’industrie, les agences gouvernementales et nongouvernementales et le public—peuvent être personnellement enrichissantes et engendrer de nouvelles approches et résultats. Même si la littérature académique indique que les approches interdisciplinaires ont beaucoup de mérite, la recherche interdisciplinaire pose des défis aux universitaires, notamment par rapport à l’obtention de subventions et la possibilité de trouver un chez-soi académique. Dans cet article, l’auteure décrit ce que l’on entend par recherche interdisciplinaire et réfléchit sur son propre parcours, des études supérieures à la titularisation. Elle montre ainsi comment les projets interdisciplinaires auxquels elle a participé ont été à la fois enrichissants et stimulants pour elle. Elle conclut que, bien que chaque savant ne doive pas être interdisciplinaire, être ouvert à une telle approche a plusieurs avantages.

show abstract

Risks and Rewards of an Interdisciplinary Research Path

Cited by 300 publications

References 4 publications

Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary Integration in Team Science

Measuring Collaboration and Transdisciplinary Integration in Team Science

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

What Kind of Scientist Are You? Science and Interdisciplinary Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About