In the context of the new focus on interdisciplinarity, collaborations that cut across the boundaries between the natural sciences and engineering, on the one hand, and the social sciences and arts, on the other, have acquired a special significance. There is, however, a serious lack of empirical studies of such collaborations. This study aimed to remedy this lack through a critical comparative study of interdisciplinary institutions. The study had four principal elements: 1) a series of experimental seminar and interdisciplinary design workshops; 2) an ethnographic study of the Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park; 3) an internet-based survey of interdisciplinary institutions; and 4) case studies of ten interdisciplinary institutions in three areas of interdisciplinary research: a) environmental and climate change research, b) ethnography in the IT industry, and c) art-science. The case studies produced 170 interviews and included periods of ethnographic fieldwork, as well as analyses of published papers and observations of relevant events and conferences.
Project Summary
One key finding challenges previous policy and theoretical approaches, which assume that interdisciplinary fields involve the integration of two or more 'antecedent disciplines'. In our research we were able to identify three distinctive modes of interdisciplinarity:
1) The integrative-synthesis mode: interdisciplinarity entails an integration or synthesis of insights and methods from two or more disciplines, and possibly also from non-expert forms of knowledge. Broadly, it is possible to distinguish between the kinds of synthesis produced through the development of common models, and those that attempt to forge a synthesis with other kinds of knowledge present in society.
2) The subordination-service mode: one or more disciplines are conceived as being subordinate to, or as serving, other component disciplines. This mode points to the hierarchical relationship between disciplines that characterizes many types of interdisciplinarity.
3) The agonistic-antagonistic mode: interdisciplinary collaborations spring from a self-conscious dialogue with, or criticism of, the limits of established disciplines or the status of academic research in general. Through this mode we highlight the often perceived imperative to contest or transcend the boundaries and assumptions of existing disciplines.
Existing accounts of interdisciplinarity overemphasise the role of interdisciplinary research in fostering new relations between scientists and society. Moreover, they underemphasise the heterogeneous nature of contemporary interdisciplinarity and the ways in which it can involve radically new ways of thinking about the nature of the objects of scientific and technical research. A second key finding of the research is that interdisciplinarity tends to be driven and justified by what we call three logics:
1) The logic of accountability: There are a variety of ways in which interdisciplinary collaboration with the arts or social sciences are expected to enhance the accountability of the natural sciences. In practice, this can be a matter of defending the sciences by providing them with a protective layer of social scientific expertise and social engagement – deflecting more disruptive criticisms. Much of the concern with the public understanding of science takes this form. But it can involve a more radical departure from notions of scientific autonomy in which public institutions and social movements help to direct or participate in the conduct of research.
2) The logic of innovation. A second set of justifications for interdisciplinarity is that the involvement of social scientists in research and development makes innovation more responsive to the real needs of users and consumers. This can involve efforts to draw social scientists into close collaboration with product designers and engineers, fine-tuning product design to user needs. But interdisciplinarity is also expected to have a range of long-term consequences, including broader changes in the corporate imagination, such as recognition of the importance of attending to social and cultural differences in emerging markets.
3) The logic of ontology: our research highlights the importance of rationales for interdisciplinarity based on recognition of the limitations of existing ways of conceiving of the objects of research, whether the environment, technology, or art. In all three case studies, new understandings of the object are central to the generation of interdisciplinary research, which in this way transcends, and is irreducible to, its 'antecedent disciplines'. Ethnographers in industry and many environmental social scientists, for example, challenge traditional natural scientific and engineering understandings of the nature of technical objects and environmental processes. [OK?] In contrast, the CGKP foundered on its inability to reconceive its object [genetic sciences?] by fostering fruitful collaborations between natural and social scientists.
The study has three key implications for policy:
1) It is not possible to evaluate many interdisciplinary institutions simply by bringing together experts from each of the different disciplines that have contributed to the development of the interdisciplinary field. There are two difficulties with this approach. It can lead to inappropriate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of interdisciplinary research, due to the reliance on existing disciplinary criteria of evaluation. But it is also likely to entail a lack of recognition of the existence of a developing body of expertise specific to the emerging interdisciplinary field, and a failure to employ that expertise in evaluation.
2) The study provides evidence that there is a need for sustained support of interdisciplinary research in terms of both scale and duration, allowing the new field to develop and enrich its common languages and to mature. Where there is evidence of incipient fruitful interdisciplinarity, policies should take into account the need for support of sufficient scale and duration to enable processes of enrichment and maturing to occur.
3) The study points to problems arising from the difference between the timescale of research and cycles of evaluation and assessment. In evaluating interdisciplinary research initiatives, we suggest the need to take into account long tails of research, fertile periods of lesser productivity and non-standard outputs