Part 2. Texts on interdisciplinary research for abstracting and annotating

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) now receives a great deal of attention because of the rich, creative contributions it often generates. But a host of factors — institutional, interpersonal, and intellectual — also make a daunting challenge of conducting research outside one's usual domain. This selection of the texts on interdisciplinary research is our brief guide to the most effective avenues for collaborative and integrative research in different spheres of knowledge.

It provides answers to questions such as what the best way is to conduct interdisciplinary research on topics related to humanitarian issues. Which are the most successful interdisciplinary research programs in these areas? How do you identify appropriate collaborators? How do you find dedicated funding streams? How do you overcome peer-review and publishing challenges? The selection outlines the lessons that can be taken from the IDR study, and presents a series of informative texts revealing the most successful interdisciplinary research ideas and programs. These programs provide a variety of models of how best to undertake interdisciplinary research.

· Write abstracts and/or annotations for each of the texts referring to the rules of abstracting and annotating on page 179 (appendix 8).

· Discuss the benefits of interdisciplinary research and the central strategies required to achieve them.

“We are not students of some subject matter, but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline.” -

Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice. Interdisciplinary research (IDR) can be one of the most productive and inspiring of human pursuits—one that provides a format for conversations and connections that lead to new knowledge. As a mode of discovery and education, it has delivered much already and promises more—a sustainable environment, healthier and more prosperous lives, new discoveries and technologies to inspire young minds, and a deeper understanding of our place in space and time.

The history of science from the time of the earliest scholarship abounds with examples of the integration of knowledge from many research fields. The pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander brought together his knowledge of geology, paleontology, and biology to discern that living beings develop from simpler to more complex forms. In the age of the great scientific revolutions of 17th-century Europe, its towering geniuses—Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, Edmond Halley, Robert Boyle, and others—brought their curiosity to bear not only on subjects that would lead to basic discoveries that bear their names but also on every kind of interdisciplinary challenge, including military and mining questions. In the 19th century, Louis Pasteur became a model interdisciplinarian, responding to practical questions about diseases and wine spoilage with surprising answers that laid the foundations of microbiology and immunology. Today, the proliferation of new understanding about the molecular and genetic underpinnings of life demonstrates the power of combining disciplinary knowledge in interdisciplinary ways.

In recent decades, the growth of scientific and technical knowledge has prompted scientists, engineers, social scientists, and humanists to join in addressing complex problems that must be attacked simultaneously with deep knowledge from different perspectives. Students show increasing enthusiasm about problems of global importance that have practical consequences, such as disease prevention, economic development, social inequality, and global climate change—all of which can best be addressed through IDR. A glance across the research landscape reveals how many of today’s “hot topics” are interdisciplinary: nanotechnology, genomics and proteomics, bioinformatics, neuroscience, conflict, and terrorism. All those invite and even demand interdisciplinary participation. Similarly, many of the great research triumphs are products of interdisciplinary inquiry and collaboration: discovery of the structure of DNA, magnetic resonance imaging, the Manhattan Project, laser eye surgery, radar, human genome sequencing, the “green revolution,” and manned space flight. There can be no question about the productivity and effectiveness of research teams formed of partners with diverse expertise.

Health research traditionally has been organized much like a series of cottage industries, lumping researchers into broad areas of scientific interest and then grouping them into distinct, departmentally based specialties. But, as science has advanced over the past decade and the molecular secrets of life have become more accessible, two fundamental themes are apparent: the study of human biology and behaviour is a wonderfully dynamic process, and the traditional divisions within health research may in some instances impede the pace of scientific discovery. The broad goal for the IDR program therefore, is to change academic research culture, both in the extramural research community and in the extramural program at the NIH, such that interdisciplinary approaches are facilitated. The Interdisciplinary Research Program includes initiatives to dissolve academic department boundaries within academic institutions and increase cooperation between institutions, train scientists to cultivate interdisciplinary efforts, and build bridges between the biological sciences and the behavioural and social sciences. Collectively, these efforts are intended to change academic research culture so that interdisciplinary approaches and team science are a normal mode of conducting research and scientists who pursue these approaches are adequately recognized and rewarded. The Interdisciplinary Research Consortia The consortia were designed to allow teams of investigators to self-assemble to develop an interdisciplinary approach to complex health problems. They are also designed to provide a new way of doing business at the NIH. A total of nine Interdisciplinary Research consortia have been funded through this initiative. Investigators within each consortium have developed integrated research projects, core services, training programs, and administrative structures to ensure consortium members work together fluidly and with a common purpose. Institutions where these consortia are housed provide administrative support for the goals of the program, ensuring that team members are adequately recognized and that boundaries between departments or schools within the university will not interfere with consortia goals. The consortia are testing a new mode of program administration within the NIH. Although each consortium was designed as a single, integrated project, the individual components were funded as separate, but linked, awards issued by the most scientifically relevant IC. Therefore, each consortium is managed by a team of program staff, each of whom oversees a component of the consortium. Team administration at the NIH ensures that the appropriate scientific expertise to guide the consortia is available. This level of trans-NIH cooperation in the management of complex projects is new for the NIH and promises to provide a mechanism for increased collaboration in the future. The Interdisciplinary Research Training Initiatives The training initiatives were developed to provide interdisciplinary training to investigators at all career stages. Investigators trained in one discipline are therefore given the opportunity to learn a new discipline and merge it with their prior training to forge new interdisciplinary approaches. Two major efforts are underway to train scientists to perform interdisciplinary research. The Interdisciplinary Health Research Training program enables institutions to develop postdoctoral training programs that provide formal coursework and research training in a new interdisciplinary field to individuals holding advanced degrees in a different discipline. These training programs typically integrate the behavioural and/or social sciences with more traditional biomedical sciences research. In addition, the program also supports broad and fundamental early-stage graduate training in the neurosciences. Another program, entitled Training for a New Interdisciplinary Workforce, supports scientists at the undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral levels. Innovation in Interdisciplinary Technology and Methods This initiative was launched to advance the understanding of health through the development of new/innovative methodologies and technologies to support the interdisciplinary integration of social and/or behavioural scientific disciplines with other disciplines. This initiative supports proposals that integrate various levels of analysis, ranging from sub-individual to population levels, acknowledging that individuals are heavily influenced by actions occurring at various levels: from genomic, molecular, cellular, and organ systems, to family, workplace and community levels, to state, national, and global socioeconomic, environmental, and geopolitical factors. This initiative supports the development of interdisciplinary research tools, or methodologies and technologies including measures, research designs, as well as analytic methods and techniques. Multiple Principal Investigator (Multi-PI) A major change for the NIH that was in part spurred by the IDR program was the policy, launched in 2007, to recognize multiple PIs on NIH grants. The Multi-PI Policy for awards was implemented beginning with grants with February 2007 receipt dates. By recognizing team leadership, the NIH hopes to encourage institutions to reward and recognize successful science teamwork through career advancement. Implementation of this policy is not complete however. Although PIs within a single institution are recognized as equals, PIs at different institutions must establish a hierarchy such that only one institution receives an award. The implementation plans for the Multi-PI policy call for changes to the NIH computer systems that will accommodate linked awards to PIs working at different institutions so that all PIs will have equal stature. Interdisciplinary Research Centers In addition to the biological sciences, biomedical research often involves participation by other scientific disciplines, including the behavioural, quantitative, social, computational/information, engineering, and physical sciences. Distinct disciplinary perspectives represent significant sources of strength to the overall research enterprise because each discipline has its own intellectual history, experimental and analytic approaches, and theoretical context that produce a unique way of thinking about a problem. Nevertheless, as scientific capabilities move forward, increasingly sophisticated questions arise, and these often require the convergence of perspectives from multiple disciplines. Over the years, the Institutes and Centers (ICs) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have developed many initiatives, mechanisms, and programs to support either disciplinary or multidisciplinary research (where multidisciplinary research is defined as bringing together different disciplines to focus on a circumscribed problem, but keeping the disciplines distinct). It is becoming apparent that, in some cases, multidisciplinary research is not sufficient to address—in a comprehensive and effective way—challenging and complex problems in biomedical and behavioural research. Rather, interdisciplinary research may be required to tackle these more complex problems. Like multidisciplinary research, interdisciplinary research brings together different disciplines to address a particular issue. But unlike multidisciplinary research, interdisciplinary research takes bits and pieces from the contributing disciplines and integrates them in ways that produce a new conceptual framework. Integrating different disciplines in this way holds the promise of opening up currently unimagined scientific avenues of inquiry and, in the process, may form whole new disciplines. Historical examples include the development of genomics, which was formed from genetics, molecular biology, analytical chemistry, and informatics. Another example in which multiple disciplines have, in a less directed way, blended and evolved into a new discipline is neuroscience. Thirty years ago, students of the brain might have identified themselves as anatomists, physiologists, or psychologists, but today most would consider themselves neuroscientists. Importantly, interdisciplinary research does not merely result in new technical approaches, but new intellectual approaches (i.e., new ways to conceptualize and think about a research problem). 3. 'Institutionalizing' Interdisciplinary Research As interest in interdisciplinary research continues to increase, colleges still don’t have answers to critical questions about the best ways to support and encourage collaboration across the disciplines. How can a department fairly evaluate interdisciplinary research in promotion and tenure decisions, for example? How can an institution raise money for interdisciplinary endeavours within a system designed to fund raise for individual schools and colleges? “We don’t yet have the solutions,” said Gail Dubrow, vice provost and dean of the graduate school at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. “But we know what the problems are.” Minnesota is heading up a new consortium of research universities that will be asking and, if all goes well, answering these and other integral questions about fostering interdisciplinary research. Ten research universities – the Universities of California at Berkeley, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin at Madison, along with Brown and Duke Universities – will participate. Together, they're designing a self-study instrument to address ways in which various university functions, everything from the development to the diversity offices, and faculty leaders to finance administrators, can support interdisciplinary endeavours. The universities will administer the self-study this winter, with Minnesota taking the lead in analyzing the results. A conference on “Fostering Interdisciplinary Inquiry” is planned for fall 2008 in Minneapolis. "The conversation I think has moved up a notch from talking about the problems, the barriers, to the positive question: How can we institutionalize our commitments to interdisciplinary academic initiatives?” said Dubrow. “Our institution, like many others, has undergone a strategic positioning or planning process over the past two years and, not surprisingly, the issue of removing barriers to interdisciplinary research came up repeatedly in that process.... We recognize, like many institutions do, that many of the ways we’ve organized historically provide a flow of resources to colleges and departments," Dubrow said. While universities have pieced together solutions to support interdisciplinary efforts, including research centers or institutes, “we haven’t necessarily changed our policies and practices to proactively foster interdisciplinarity," Dubrow said. Nor are there established best practices to turn to for guidance yet, she added: “Best practices are just now being documented. We have individual institutional examples and certainly a wealth of anecdotes, but we haven’t systematically studied or shared [practices].” Dubrow cited evaluating interdisciplinary work for promotion and tenure purposes and methods of fund raising for interdisciplinary research as areas that would likely get a lot of attention, but described a broad basis of inquiry beyond that. Streamlining the funding process so that faculty working across disciplines don’t routinely have to ask multiple university units a year for money – “we simply have institutionalized the practice of begging,” Dubrow said – seems to be another key area of concern, for instance. Also, “some institutions have invested quite heavily in new interdisciplinary arts and science buildings, but we haven’t shared what are the features of those spaces. What would go into the design of a collaborative space?” Other areas of inquiry could include how to better involve students at all levels in the research and how to alleviate the stress on faculty time that comes with pursuing interdisciplinary work, said Susan Roth, vice provost for interdisciplinary studies at Duke. “I think faculty are very stimulated by interdisciplinary work and love to be a part of it, but it creates a strain in terms of both being pulled away from the department,” Roth said. “We’re all glad that [the University of Minnesota] is taking the leadership role and providing the structure for us to have this cross-university conversation,” Roth said. “These questions are on everyone’s minds, so they’re not taking us anywhere we don’t already want to go.”