Convergence Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Convergence Is Informed by Research Areas with Broad Scope
3 Convergence Is Informed by Research Areas with Broad Scope
Pages 43-58
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
3.1 TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS Convergence has characteristics in common with other terms used to capture the concept of research that spans disciplines. A foundation of research from social sciences, humanities, organizational theory, higher education studies, and studies of science and technology in society has deepened understanding of different kinds of integration defined in concepts of transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and multidisciplinarity.
|
From page 44... ...
Individuals and even members of a team working on a common problem such as environmental sustainability or evident from the descriptions, many defining characteristics of convergence are similar or even identical to defining traits of transdisciplinarity, key among them merging of distinct and diverse approaches into a unified whole. The merging of expertise from fields of engineering with fields of physical and life sciences in order to create a new systems framework for integrative cancer biology is one example -- bringing together areas such as experimental biology, computational modeling, and imaging technology.
|
From page 45... ...
increase the likelihood of creative results, this does not mean research combining diverse inputs is on an evolutionary or deterministic path. Scientific advance has always been, and will continue to be, a combination of results from a multitude of incremental advances in knowledge and their verification with occasional notable breakthroughs of many different origins and arising from many different modes of knowledge creation: examples include serendipitous discoveries, eureka flashes of insight by individuals, and powerful integrations of knowledge from diverse fields by individuals and by teams.
|
From page 46... ...
The scope of activities is wide: from the daily borrowing of tools, methods, and concepts across disciplinary boundaries to projects and programs focused on complex societal and intellectual questions, to the formation of new fields, interdisciplines, and transcending "transdisciplinary" paradigms. In the latter half of the 20th century, boundary-crossing also became a recognized characteristic of knowledge production that was permeating disciplines, not simply a peripheral interest at the edges of "normal" work.
|
From page 47... ...
. Since scientists from different disciplines are likely to have different networks of peers, to participate in different conferences, and to publish in different journals, their weaker social bonds may increase the difficulty of developing goal interdependence and a sense of trust (Cummings and Kiesler 2005)
|
From page 48... ...
For example, certain fields in the humanities and social sciences are dominated by individual scholars rather than structured into group laboratories, make greater use of single-author publications, draw largely on qualitative analysis, or have other disciplinary characteristics that may be less familiar to researchers practicing in the life, physical, medical and engineering sciences. The committee emphasizes that these differences do not mean that insights from these fields should not be integrated in convergent research, but that greater levels of cognitive dissonance among participants and greater starting differences in areas such as faculty expectations and organizational structures may factor in strategies used to support convergent initiatives.
|
From page 49... ...
Interpersonal • Research team cohesiveness • Team diversity • Team flexibility • Regular and effective communication • Mutual respect Intrapersonal Organizational • Attitudes toward collaborative research • Strong incentives supporting collaboration • Preparation for and tolerance of • Nonhierarchical structure complexities and tensions • Diversity of perspectives represented • participatory leadership styles • Climate of sharing information and credit Factors Influencing the Effectiveness Physical Environmental of Transdisciplinary Technological • Spatial proximity of team workspaces Science • Strong internal and external network • Comfortable meeting areas Initiatives linkages • Regulation of visual and auditory privacy • Effectiveness of team electronic communication styles • Data security Societal and Political • Policies facilitate exchange and collaboration • Policies and protocols that support transdisciplinary collaborations (IP management, ethical conduct) FIGURE 3-1 Factors influencing the effectiveness of transdisciplinary science initiatives.
|
From page 50... ...
• Engagement in knowledge-transfer activities: Although the extent varies, science and engineering disciplines also engage in knowledge dissemination through the generation of patents. For example, a study of the curricula vitae of 1,200 scientists affili ated with Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and NSF research centers found that mean patent rates were higher in computer science, engineering, and physical science fields than in biological science, although these fields were all higher than social science and humanities (Dietz and Bozeman 2005)
|
From page 51... ...
.1 In life sciences, norms as well as funding agency requirements call for the deposition of biological data such as nucleic-acid sequences and protein structures in databases such as GenBank or the Protein Data Bank, respectively, where the information is accessible to all researchers. However, legal ques tions surrounding patient consent and privacy complicate clini cal information sharing in the medical field.
|
From page 52... ...
Those engaged in the project undertook extensive planning, were in frequent communication, agreed on core aspects such as research questions, methodological approaches, and resource sharing, and generally already knew each other and had formed a sense of trust and competence. The NCPIR collaboration, on the other hand, was imposed by the funding agency, involved two geographically distant uni versities with researchers from basic and clinical fields who did not previously know each other and had different approaches to the research questions, and was in a scientific area (particularly polycystic ovary syndrome)
|
From page 53... ...
study that is examining how factors such as team dynamics, team management, and institutional structures and policies affect large and small science teams. This study aims to capture the existing literature and wisdom of practice while illuminating gaps in the evidence base needed to improve team science processes and outcomes and to enhance collaborative research effectiveness.
|
From page 54... ...
As the committee heard during its workshop, the environment provided by undergraduate liberal arts colleges and small, STEM-focused schools already models teaching and learning strategies that support the goals of convergence, through institutional policies that encourage faculty to develop new methods of teaching that span disciplines and because smaller physical size fosters random interactions that can lead to unexpected collaborations. These colleges send more students on to graduate training programs than would be expected based on their size (D.
|
From page 55... ...
The report noted that, "although most doctoral work is still organized in disciplines, scholarly work in doctoral programs increasingly crosses disciplinary boundaries in both content and methods. The committee tried to identify measures of multi- and interdisciplinarity, but it believes it did not address the issue in the depth deserved, nor did the committee discover the kind of relation, if any, between multidisciplinarity and the perceived quality of doctoral programs" (NRC 2011c, pp.
|
From page 56... ...
3.4 CONVERGENCE MAY CONTRIBUTE TO UNDERSTANDING QUANTIFICATION AND REPRODUCIBILITY IN LIFE SCIENCES As the chapter highlights, a significant body of research has examined the relationship of individual and organizational factors to integrative and collaborative research and teaching, with insights that might transfer to the goal of fostering convergence. Discussion during the data-gathering workshop illuminated several additional differences in the ways that life scientists and physical scientists or engineers are perceived to approach problem solving, with potential impacts on fundamental research challenges at the frontier of the life, medical, physical, and engineering sciences.
|
From page 57... ...
Possible factors that have been suggested include limited ability to fully describe methods in written journal articles, uncharacterized variance in experimental conditions, limitations in preclinical cell culture and animal models, pressure on scientists to publish positive results, low value placed on replicating the results of others, and insufficient statistical expertise or experimental design. This is an area which needs further study in order to address a key stumbling block to research progress.
|
From page 58... ...
Where applicable, this report highlights similarities where information from convergence programs echoes such prior findings, notes aspects that may be specific to the combination of life, physical, medical, and engineering fields, and suggests how they affect challenges encountered in fostering convergence. There is widespread recognition among scientists that addressing critical challenges in health, energy, and sustainability at both the research and application stages draws on contributions from disciplines beyond the life, physical, engineering, and medical sciences.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.