In today’s ever-evolving landscape, interdisciplinary research (IDR) has emerged as a critical tool for tackling complex societal challenges. This blog post delves into the distinctive challenges faced by IDR, focusing on the crucial aspect of knowledge integration. By understanding the unique hurdles posed by diverse disciplines, we can pave the way for more effective and streamlined interdisciplinary collaboration.
Before we explore the challenges, it’s essential to establish what we mean by interdisciplinary research. In the realm of research, collaboration spans a spectrum, from disciplinary research to transdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinary research specifically involves two or more disciplines working together, sharing knowledge, and working in tandem on a common problem (Choi & Pak, 2006, Stokols et al., 2008).
Interdisciplinary research has gained popularity across research institutions over the past few decades due to its necessity in today’s complex world. As highlighted by Moirano et al. (2020) and Rhoten (2003), today’s world is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Essentially, society faces multifaceted problems that defy simple solutions. In order to face these challenges, society must collaborate across different expertise, drawing knowledge from all areas, which is where IDR shines. Its popularity is evident in the push for more interdisciplinary research efforts by various institutions and the establishment of fields dedicated to enhancing collaboration such as the science of team science (SciTS) (Hall et al., 2018).
Knowledge Integration:
To understand the difficulties faced by IDR, it’s helpful to think about the three levels of creative collaboration: individual, collective, and environmental. The individual level refers to the unique characteristics of the individuals in the group. The collective level refers to the intricate ways in which individuals within a group interact and collaborate. Lastly, the environmental level refers to all the factors in the physical and non-physical environment that impact the group (Moriano et al. 2020; Pinkow, 2023). What makes IDR unique from general group collaboration, is the diversity of disciplines, which affects the collective level. To understand the difficulties of IDR, we need to dive into the unique challenges of IDR at the collective level, which leads us to the concept of knowledge integration.
Among the myriad challenges faced by interdisciplinary teams, knowledge integration emerges as a major hurdle. Integrating knowledge involves effectively communicating knowledge across disciplines in order to reach a shared understanding of the challenge and goal of the group (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018; Miller, 2016; Stokols et al., 2008). Knowledge integration is essential for effective collaboration; however, it is more challenging than it seems on the surface. In order to understand why this is the case, we must first discuss three elements of knowledge integration: knowledge diversity, properties of knowledge, and boundaries to knowledge integration.
Knowledge Diversity:
The concept of knowledge diversity, as discussed by Edmondson & Harvey (2018) and Moirano et al. (2020), involves three key dimensions. Firstly, there is “variety,” encompassing differences in knowledge content, background, and experience within interdisciplinary teams. Beyond variety, there is “disparity,” reflecting differences in assets and resources like income, power, and status, influenced by environmental factors. Lastly, “separation” pertains to differences in opinions, beliefs, and attitudes, delving into the intangible aspects of diversity. Edmondson and Harvey (2018) emphasize that having knowledge variety in IDR is what makes it uniquely valuable. The whole reason that IDR is so essential is because it brings together unique views from various disciplines. However, you can’t have knowledge variety without also having disparity and separation because the three are so interconnected. Therefore, it is essential to look at all three elements of knowledge diversity when trying to understand the challenges of knowledge integration.
Properties of Knowledge:
Examining the role of knowledge in organizations, Carlile (2002) and Edmondson and Harvey (2018) describe three key properties of knowledge: localized, embedded, and invested. Localized knowledge, specific to a context or problem within a discipline, proves challenging to share due to its dependence on background knowledge and deep understanding. Embedded knowledge, characterized by its tacit nature acquired through experience, becomes difficult to articulate explicitly to team members lacking similar field experiences. Lastly, invested knowledge, costly to develop or redevelop, poses a challenge not in sharing but in disputing. Questioning invested knowledge can lead to emotional responses and relational conflict, hindering creativity and collaboration. These properties are not mutually exclusive, and navigating their unique challenges is crucial for overcoming barriers to knowledge integration in organizations.
Boundaries to Integrating Knowledge:
In addition to the challenges posed by knowledge properties, integrating knowledge faces specific barriers due to group diversity, as outlined by Carlile (2002) and Edmondson and Harvey (2018). Three main boundaries are identified: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Syntactic boundaries arise from language differences between disciplines, causing confusion and miscommunication. Semantic boundaries result from varying systems of interpretation among disciplines, making it challenging to agree on a common understanding. Thicker boundaries occur when disciplines are further apart, thinning as disciplines become closer. Pragmatic boundaries involve differences in group members’ interests or goals, with hidden or conflicting goals posing significant challenges. Overcoming these boundaries is crucial for effective collaboration, as they impact a group’s ability to achieve a shared understanding and common goals, essential for knowledge integration.
Putting the Pieces Together:
When considering the contributing factors of knowledge diversity, the properties of knowledge, and the boundaries to knowledge integration, it becomes clear why knowledge integration as a whole presents such a challenge. Looking at all these pieces together two related but distinct broad challenges become apparent.
On one hand, there are the practical challenges to knowledge integration. These include the very real barriers to sharing knowledge across disciplines that have historically worked in their own silos (Stichweh, 1992). Because disciplines have been separated and specialized, each has its own unique language and systems of interpretation that can be difficult to communicate to other disciplines (semantic and syntactic boundaries). Furthermore, IDR requires the integration of knowledge and therefore the properties of knowledge add an additional layer of complexity. The profound separation of disciplines means that interdisciplinary teams often need to share knowledge that is deeply localized or embedded which we know can be difficult.
On the other hand, we have the more human challenges related to interdisciplinary collaboration. Any group working together may face difficulties with emotional tension; however, there are certain elements of IDR and knowledge integration that bring about unique challenges. Knowledge separation and disparity, pragmatic challenges, and the invested nature of knowledge all contribute in various ways to the emotional strain on a group. According to Young et al. (2014), relationship conflict within interdisciplinary teams negatively impacts creativity and collaboration. Understanding these two broad areas of practical challenges and human challenges offers us unique insight into some of the challenges of IDR on a collective level.
The overarching goal remains to make IDR more accessible and effective. Acknowledging and understanding the challenges, as highlighted in this post, is a crucial first step. Moving forward, the focus will shift towards strategies to overcome these barriers.
References:
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Médecine Clinique et Experimentale, 29(6), 351–364.
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347-360.
Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532.
Miller, C. Z. (2016). Towards transdisciplinarity: Liminality and the transitions inherent in pluridisciplinary collaborative work. Journal of Business Anthropology, 35-57.
Moirano, R., Sánchez, M. A., & Štěpánek, L. (2020). Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100626.
Pinkow, F. (2023). Creative cognition: A multidisciplinary and integrative framework of creative thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(3), 472-492.
Rhoten, D. (2003). A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Final Report, National Science Foundation BCS-0129573.
Stichweh, R. (1992). The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context, 5(1), 3-15.
Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77-S89.Yong, K., Sauer, S. J., & Mannix, E. A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266-289.
Leave a Reply