Making Interdisciplinarity Work

1. Chronicle 2005 Making Interdisciplinarity Work Stephanie Pfirman Barnard College, Columbia University Director of Interdisciplinary Initiatives Co-PI NSF Columbia Earth Institute Advancing Women in the Sciences President, Council of Environmental Deans and Directors

2. Outline • Who is engaging in interdisciplinarity? • How do people approach interdisciplinarity? • What are the consequences of engaging in interdisciplinarity? • What can individuals do to overcome interdisciplinary challenges? • What can institutions do to build interdisciplinary capacity?

3. Who is engaging in interdisciplinarity?

4. All Lifecycle/Cohort % Time Spent on Interdisciplinary Research Medical and Biological Sciences Physical and Engineering Sciences Women 1.1x Junior Women 1.4x Jr Women not PE 1.7x Social Sciences Arts and Humanities Evaluation Associates, 1999: Research Assessment in the United Kingdom

5. Disciplinary Stereotypes Interdisciplinary Stereotypes ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ • Quantitative • Qualitative • Concerned about others • Communal • Tough • Self-driven • Independent • Nice • Assertive • Welfare orientation • Self-promoting • Helpful • Collaborative • Careerist • Risky science • Mainstream science • Consensus style • Task oriented • Socially sensitive • Synthesis • Quick to publish • Productive • Multitasking • Focused • Competitive • Societal good • Friendly • Democratic leadership • Hierarchical leadership ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________

6. Characteristics of Disciplinary vs. Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Scientists … Disciplinary • Quantitative • Tough • Self-driven • Independent • Assertive • Self-promoting, take credit for successes • Careerist • Risky science within the mainstream/consensus science • Focused, task oriented • Quick to publish, get ideas out • Productive • Competitive • Command-and-control leadership (e.g. lab hierarchy) Collaborative, Interdisciplinary • Relational, qualitative • Friendly, nice • Concerned about others and their welfare • Helping • Socially sensitive, listening • Communal • Less careerist • Interdisciplinary science • Multitasking • Synthesis • Not competitive • Consensus oriented, democratic leadership Which side looks like an easier tenure case?

7. Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity Alan L. Porter, Alex S. Cohen, David Roessner and Marty Perreault, 2007, Scientometrics Gardner’s Synthesizing Mind? Interdisciplinary researchers do not tend to specialize, while disciplinary researchers do

8. Evolution toward ID, or ID from outset? “Knowing when and how to bring interdisciplinary work into one’s career is a question for many researchers. Kinzig notes that many scientists feel strongly that students should become expert in one discipline before crossing boundaries. But, she adds, “I think we have an increasing number of students who aren’t that interested in being disciplinary. I think if I had had to focus narrowly within a particular discipline,I would not have finished graduate school. I just would have gotten bored.”’ NATURE|Vol 443|21 September 2006

9. ID Training Pfirman, 2008

10. HOW DO PEOPLE APPROACH INTERDISCIPLINARITY?

11. ID Research, Teaching, Administration Cross-fertilization – adapting and using ideas, approaches and information from different fields and/or disciplines Team-collaboration – collaborating in teams or networks that span different fields and/or disciplines Field-creation – topics that sit at the intersection or edges of multiple fields and/or disciplines Problem-orientation – problems that engage multiple stakeholders and missions outside of academe, for example that serve society Intrapersonal: Cognitive Connections Interpersonal: Collegial Connections Inter-departmental: Cross-field Connections Stakeholder: Community Connections Rhoten and Pfirman, 2007a,b

12. Cognitive Connections Women 1.3x Evaluation Associates, 1999

13. Collegial Connections Ways of working of researchers involved in ID research (%) Evaluation Associates, 1999

14. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENGAGING IN INTERDISCIPLINARITY?

16. Pfirman, Martin et al., http://ncseonline.org/CEDD/cms.cfm?id=2042

17. “Are there impediments to interdisciplinary research at your current institution?” Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2004, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Convocation

18. Small Differences in Promotional Steps Add Up Over time

19. Diverse Academics Less Productive than those who Specialize Leahey et al. 2008 Gendered academic careers: Specializing for success? Social Forces, 85, 3, 1273-1309 Note: The diverse scholar has a specialization score of <.22 and the specialized scholar has specialization score of >.58, the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively, of the distribution of specialization scores.

20. Women Specialize Less 2006, Gender & Society

21. ID Leads to Identity IssuesThe Central Source of Faculty Identity is the Discipline “Each of us has had the experience of feeling as though we do not ‘really’ belong to the research team, or that, upon returning to our scholarly ‘homes’ after a research meeting, we do not really belong there either. Working at the boundaries of communities of practice, team members can feel uprooted, alien, frustrated. … (Lingard et al., 2007). … while their peers establish identity and status within the discipline, interdisciplinary scholars have to “live without the comfort of expertise” (Lattuca, 2001)

22. Expertise and Status “Cognitively central” members expected to hold higher-status position and dominate discussion more than “cognitively peripheral” members Wittenbaum and Bowman, 2005

23. Communication of “Shared” vs. “Unshared” Information Shared information evaluated as more important, relevant Members value shared information and those who contribute it because that information can be verified as correct Wittenbaum and Bowman, 2005

24. Communication of Unshared Information Non-mainstream/ Inter-disciplinary • Unshared information communicated by high-status member is more likely to be repeated, remembered and shared than if communicated by low-status member • Members judged by others as competent are afforded opportunity and credibility necessary for emphasizing unshared information • Unshared information mentioned by low-status members is not remembered and repeated to the same extent: perhaps met with some skepticism and perhaps valued less Wittenbaum and Bowman, 2005

25. “Non-Mainstream” = Lack of ValueStudy of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Faculty Perceptions of Colleagues’ Valuation of Research Colleagues solicit my opinion about work Colleagues value my research Non-mainstream lack of value1.9x

26. Faculty Perception of Colleagues’ Valuation of Research by Gender and Department ChairStudy of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Women 1.2x http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm

27. Faculty Perception of Colleagues’ Valuation of Research by Faculty of Color and Majority FacultyStudy of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Non-majority 1.2x http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm

28. Faculty who describe their research as "non-mainstream" responded more negatively to all items than their colleagues doing "mainstream" research • Workplace Interactions: • The Faculty Worklife survey asked faculty to evaluate the quality of their workplace interactions along five thematic dimensions: respect in the workplace, informal departmental interactions, colleagues' valuation of research, isolation and "fit," and departmental decision-making. • Cause vs. effect? Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: N = 1,338. http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm

29. WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS DO TO OVERCOME ID CHALLENGES?

30. CV Publication Annotation? • PNAS: Authors must indicate their specific contributions to the published work. … Examples of designations include: • Designed research • Performed research • Contributed new reagents or analytic tools • Analyzed data • Wrote the paper • Nature: “Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of every author.” • T.J. and U.H.v.A. designed the study; • T.J., E.A.M., M.I., S.M. and P.A.L. performed experiments; • T.J., E.A.M., M.I. and S.M. collected and analysed data; • M.B., K.F., N.C.D.P., D.M.S., N.v.R. and S.P.W. provided reagents and mice; • T.J., E.A.M., M.I. and U.H.v.A. wrote the manuscript; S.M., • K.F., S.E.H., T.M. and S.P.W. gave technical support and conceptual advice.

31. Develop a Focused Research Strategy • Draft a research plan • Include several, but not too many, synergistic projects (maybe 3?) • Create a conceptual model/cartoon to help frame and communicate research • Develop a timeline with dates of meetings, deadlines for RFPs, etc.

32. Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplinesHeemskerk, M., K. Wilson, and M. Pavao-Zuckerman. 2003. Conservation Ecology 7(3): 8. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art8/ http://walter.arizona.edu/_media/images/nepa_flowchart.gif

33. Planning Can Work • “… postdoctoral scholars who had crafted explicit plans with their adviser at the outset of their appointments were more satisfied with their experience than those who had not. In addition to subjective measures of success, postdoctoral scholars with written plans • submitted papers to peer-reviewed journals at a 23% higher rate • first-author papers at a 30% higher rate, and • grant proposals at a 25% higher rate • than those without written plans.” From NAS Bias Report 2006: G Davis (2005). Optimizing the Postdoctoral Experience: An Empirical Approach (working paper). Research Triangle Park, NC: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.

34. Diana Rhoten, 2009 WHAT CAN INSTITUTIONS DO TO BUILD INTERDISCIPLINARY CAPACITY?

35. Structural Possibilities • Stability (40-50) with subgroups (10-15 researchers), some flux (<5 yrs), resources, diversity Rhoten, 2003 • Centers Bozeman and Corley • Cross-cutting initiatives Columbia Earth Institute • Seminars/journal clubs/lunch! Hollingsworth, 2001 • Committee/Vice Provost • ID Research, Education, Human Resources

36. Search and Hiring:I can't tell you how many times I have reviewed searches in which the people—predominantly women and minority-group members—were not hired, because they didn't “fit”.-Angelica Stacy, Professor of Chemistry and Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Equity, University of California, Berkeley (2006) “Narrow position specifications also affect the applicant pool and the numbers of women hired. There is mounting evidence that women are choosing to work at the boundaries of disciplines. … As part of its diversity initiative, UCB has started to hold some full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty positions centrally to encourage groups of faculty and departments to pool resources and propose hires in new multidisciplinary research areas. The University of Wisconsin, Madison and a number of other institutions have similar central-hire or cohire programs based on a commitment to enhance interdisciplinary research. Those policies counteract the tendency of departments to hire people to fill the mainstream slots, rather than moving the institutions forward into new fields. To accomplish the latter, institutional leadership is important.” Beyond Bias and Barriers, NAS 2006: p. 5-7,8

37. CEDD 2007: Interdisciplinary Hiring, Tenure and Promotion: Guidance for Individuals and Institutionshttp://www.ncseonline.org/CEDD/cms.cfm?id=2042

38. Support Multiple Levels of ID Res & Ed “New directions” sabbaticals Course development Multiple authors, PIs Co-teaching Centers Joint majors, linked courses Research practice, applications Civic engagement Intrapersonal: Cognitive Connections Interpersonal: Collegial Connections Inter-departmental: Cross-field Connections Stakeholder: Community Connections Rhoten and Pfirman, 2007a,b

39. Identify Institutional Commitment to IDR

40. Recognize Issues with Joint-Appointment, Junior, Tenure-Track Hires • Even if the chairs are committed and all agreements are put in writing, what happens to the junior hire when the chairs rotate off? • Burden on junior hire to figure out how the units will get along • Department does not feel as responsible for hires sponsored by another source as they do when they invest their own resources at the outset • “If they were really good enough, they would have been hired the regular way” “You don’t adopt a child to sort through whether or not you want a marriage” Art Small, III

41. Cross-Field Women More Likely to Hold Joint Appointments(at UC Berkeley) • Women tend to hold joint appointments in business, biology, law, city and regional planning, economics, and environmental science. • In one of the newer departments, bioengineering, half of the faculty are women. • When the biological sciences were restructured to include broad, multidisciplinary approaches, the proportion of women faculty increased to 50%. % STEM Faculty Holding Joint Appointments Women 1.7x Beyond Bias and Barriers, NAS 2006: p. 5-7,8

42. Craft Individual MOUs • Drafted before the search begins • Completed and signed by all for the hire letter • Reviewed at each review stage • Included in the tenure dossier

43. Confront the Tenure/Promotion Issue Maybe Change Tenure Criteria? Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate (1990) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2004, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Convocation

44. Conclusions • We have responsibilities for the people we hire and teach – need to • create a culture, • implement procedures and oversight, and • allocate and maintain resources that will allow interdisciplinary scholars and students to thrive and prosper