Laserfiche WebLink
378 C. R. Nicolson and others <br />before a variety of scientists can work together ef- <br />fectively in an interdisciplinary mode. Among these <br />obstacles is the problem of cross-discipline commu- <br />nication, since specialists are used to interacting <br />with peers from within their fields who share a <br />common view of the issues and a common lan- <br />guage for discussing them. The problem of commu- <br />nication will be addressed in heuristic 9, but it is <br />also relevant here because it can be a stumbling <br />block when choosing and recruiting team members. <br />To foster good communication among prospective <br />team members even at the recruitment stage, it is <br />essential to develop a prototype conceptual model <br />of the system (see heuristic 3). <br />A major obstacle to interdisciplinary work is that <br />scientists are trained and socialized from their grad- <br />uate school days to focus on narrow, tractable prob- <br />lems within clearly defined boundaries. They are <br />taught how to identify problems that lie on the <br />cutting edge of their discipline, and they leam ap- <br />propriate methods for solving these problems. In <br />other words, using Holling's (1996) distinction be- <br />tween the science of parts and the science of the <br />integration of parts, scientific training is essentially <br />an induction into the methods and norms of the <br />science of parts. In the science of parts, investigators <br />within a discipline focus on a narrowly defined <br />question with the goal of reducing uncertainty to <br />., the point of consensus. In contrast, the science of <br />? <br />the integration of parts calls for people who are com- <br />mitted to studying a complex system by focusing <br />not so much on the individual components of the <br />system as on the interrelationships among its com- <br />ponents. Although it is often true that outstanding <br />interdisciplinarians also have very high reputations <br />within a specialist field, the best disciplinary minds <br />are not necessarily the best interdisciplinary team <br />members. Interdisciplinary projects are intellectu- <br />ally demanding in a different way from classic re- <br />ductionist science, and they need at least some big- <br />picture researchers who will creatively explore the <br />linkages and interfaces between their own disci- <br />pline and other fields of inquiry in which they may <br />themselves have no special expertise. <br />Another key attribute of a good interdisciplinary <br />team member is the ability to simplify what is <br />known and, when necessary, guess at the unknown <br />(see heuristic 8). These activities call for people with <br />a deep grasp of their own disciplines: Weak or in- <br />secure disciplinary minds can frustrate team <br />progress by refusing to explore linkages, to simplify <br />their field, or to guess at unknown factors. Not only <br />are these activities necessary to make an interdisci- <br />plinary study a success, but they are often not the <br />types of activities that their own disciplinary peers <br />will recognize as valuable contributions to the <br />scholarship of their field, and publishing their work <br />may not be easy. Young scientists are particularly at <br />risk because they have not yet established their <br />reputation and because the reward systems of aca- <br />demia bend to favor disciplinary specialists. <br />All team members who embark on interdiscipli- <br />nary projects need to be made aware of these kinds <br />of problems in advance so that they join the team <br />with realistic expectations, an adventurous attitude, <br />and a willingness to work at cross-disaplinary com- <br />munication. For a project leader to know if some- <br />one is right for the team, he or she should look for <br />scholars who can see the big picture, whose track <br />record shows an ability to work with people outside <br />their own discipline, who are good listeners, and <br />whose interest in a problem outweighs their con- <br />cern for career advancement! How can such people <br />be motivated to participate? One incentive may <br />simply be an appeal the intellectual satisfaction of <br />seeing how their disciplinary interests fit within a <br />larger framework, thereby sharpening their under- <br />standing of their own disciplines. <br />Heuristic 2. Invest strongly in problem definition earlyT <br />in the project. By their very nature, projects that <br />involve complex systems with many interacting <br />components lend themselves to multiple focuses. <br />Different stakeholders often have different percep- <br />tions of the problem. In addition, each disciplinary <br />expert has a vested professional interest in defining <br />the problem so as to give his or her discipline a <br />prominent role with a bias toward the researcher's <br />particular expertise within the disapline. In the <br />absence of strong leadership, it is far easier to end <br />up doing multidisciplinary research (where experts <br />work in parallel with each other without much <br />meaningful integration) than it is to do truly inter- <br />disciplinary research. To address this challenge, the <br />problem needs to be thoughtfully and clearly de- <br />fined from the outset. This is never a straightfor- <br />ward exercise, even when there are compelling rea- <br />sons for the study. The parties involved in problem <br />definition need to understand that choosing the <br />focus of an IA project is fundamentally a negotiated <br />process. For this reason, all the parties (disciplinary <br />researchers, stakeholders, and funding agencies) <br />must be given opportunities to exchange perspec- <br />tives and must be aware of each other's priorities. <br />Heuristics 1 and 2 are obviously interrelated. Un- <br />til you define the problem, you cannot assemble a <br />team; and until you have a team, you cannot really <br />define the problem. (This is why we promoted the <br />idea of developing a prototype conceptual model, <br />even at the stage of recruiting team members. ) The <br />ideal situation is one in which a small group has the