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
1
Outline





2
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?
WHO IS ENGAGING IN
INTERDISCIPLINARITY?
3
All
Medical and Biological Sciences
Lifecycle/Cohort
% Time Spent on
Interdisciplinary
Research
Physical and Engineering Sciences
Social Sciences
Women
1.1x
Junior Women
1.4x
Jr Women not PE 1.7x
Arts and Humanities
4
Evaluation Associates, 1999:
Research Assessment in the
United Kingdom
Disciplinary
Stereotypes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
5
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
Interdisciplinary
Stereotypes
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Characteristics of Disciplinary vs.
Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Scientists …
Disciplinary













6
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?
Gardner’s
Synthesizing
Mind?
Interdisciplinary
researchers do
not tend to
specialize, while
disciplinary
researchers do
7
Measuring researcher
interdisciplinarity
Alan L. Porter, Alex S. Cohen,
David Roessner and Marty
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.”’
8
NATURE|Vol 443|21 September 2006
ID Training
Structuring Curricular Content /
Career Trajectory
Disciplinary
Funnel
Introductory
Intermediate
Capstone
9
D or ID
D
D
Bloom's
Taxonomy?
Interdisciplinary
Fan
D
ID or D
ID
Sandwich
ID
D
ID
Buffet
ID
Knowledge,
Comprehension
ID
Application,
Analysis
ID
Synthesis,
Evaluation
Pfirman, 2008
HOW DO PEOPLE APPROACH
INTERDISCIPLINARITY?
10
ID Research, Teaching, Administration
Intrapersonal:
Cognitive
Connections
Interpersonal:
Collegial
Connections
Interdepartmental:
Cross-field
Connections
Stakeholder:
Community
Connections
11
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
Rhoten and Pfirman, 2007a,b
Cognitive Connections
12
Women 1.3x
Collegial Connections
Ways of working of researchers
involved in ID research (%)
13
Evaluation Associates, 1999
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF
ENGAGING IN
INTERDISCIPLINARITY?
14
Promise and Perils of Interdisciplinary Research
Often Early Attraction …
But Later difficulties …
New area
Can break new ground
Less competition
Less urgency
Lack of recognition by
established scholars
Lack of funding opportunities
Lack of journals
Lack of peer reviewers
Career trajectory not known
Long start up time
No one to correct flaws
Social/Applied
Connections
Appeals to social conscience Less prestigious research area
Connect with public good
Complex
questions
Holistic approach required
Less amenable to theory
Collaborative
Build on strengths of others
Use people skills
Time to cultivate and maintain
Critical literature in other field
Dependent on collaborator
Idea origin not clear
Between
Depts/Centers
Freedom because outside of No one has responsibility for you
established hierarchy
Interinstitutional
Broadens network for letter
writers
Requires travel
Less visibility on home campus
Promise and Perils of Interdisciplinary
Education and Community
Often Early Attraction …
But Later difficulties …
Teaching
Exciting subject
Student interest
Co-teaching
Field experiences
Service learning
<= No textbook, resources
Lack of infrastructure to sustain
“extra” duties (note Theater)
Campus Life
Campus programming
Community connections
Bridge betw disciplines:
search committees,
presentations
Become known on campus
Everyone wants a piece of you
Scholarly
Participation
Field more open, can
initiate programs
Few high level, prestigious
committees
Not as many honors in
interdisciplinary fields
Promotion and
Tenure
Criteria often disadvantage
interdisciplinary scholars
Pfirman, Martin et al., http://ncseonline.org/CEDD/cms.cfm?id=2042
“Are there impediments to interdisciplinary
research at your current institution?”
17
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2004, Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Convocation
Small Differences in Promotional
Steps Add Up Over time
18
Diverse Academics Less Productive than
those who Specialize
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
19 scores.
specialization
Leahey et al. 2008
Gendered academic careers: Specializing for
success? Social Forces, 85, 3, 1273-1309
Women Specialize Less
2006, Gender & Society
20
ID Leads to Identity Issues
The 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)
21
Expertise and Status
“Cognitively central”
members expected to
hold higher-status
position and dominate
discussion more than
“cognitively
peripheral” members
Wittenbaum and Bowman, 2005
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
23
Wittenbaum and Bowman, 2005
Communication of Unshared
NonInformation
mainstream/

Unshared information communicated by highstatus member is more likely to be repeated,
remembered and shared than if communicated
by low-status member


Interdisciplinary
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
“Non-Mainstream” = Lack of Value
Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Faculty Perceptions of Colleagues’ Valuation of Research
Colleagues solicit my opinion about work
Non-mainstream lack of value1.9x
Colleagues value my research
25
Faculty Perception of Colleagues’ Valuation of
Research
by Gender and Department Chair
Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
26
Women 1.2x
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm
Faculty Perception of Colleagues’ Valuation of
Research
by Faculty of Color and Majority Faculty
Study of Faculty Worklife at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
27
Non-majority 1.2x
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm
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.
28
http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/survey/results/facultypre/profact/interact/summary.htm
WHAT CAN INDIVIDUALS DO TO
OVERCOME ID CHALLENGES?
29
CV Publication Annotation?

PNAS: Authors must indicate their specific contributions to
the published work. … Examples of designations include:






Nature: “Authors are required to include a statement of
responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution
of every author.”






30
Designed research
Performed research
Contributed new reagents or analytic tools
Analyzed data
Wrote the paper
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.
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.

31
Conceptual models as tools for
communication across disciplines
Heemskerk, 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
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.
Diana Rhoten, 2009
WHAT CAN INSTITUTIONS DO
TO BUILD INTERDISCIPLINARY
CAPACITY?
34
Structural Possibilities

Stability (40-50) with subgroups (10-15
researchers), some flux (<5 yrs), resources,
diversity Rhoten, 2003




Committee/Vice Provost

35
Centers Bozeman and Corley
Cross-cutting initiatives Columbia Earth Institute
Seminars/journal clubs/lunch! Hollingsworth, 2001
ID Research, Education, Human Resources
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.”
36
Beyond Bias and Barriers, NAS 2006: p. 5-7,8
CEDD 2007: Interdisciplinary Hiring, Tenure and Promotion:
Guidance for Individuals and Institutions
http://www.ncseonline.org/CEDD/cms.cfm?id=2042
LIFE CYCLE:
Structural Considerations
Position creation and
institutional acceptance
Search and hiring
Junior development,
mentoring and protection
Dossier preparation and
evaluation (3rd, 5th year
reviews, tenure)
Senior development
Issues and
Sample language
recommendations (case studies)
Links to
resources
Support Multiple Levels of ID Res & Ed
Intrapersonal:
Cognitive
Connections
38
“New directions” sabbaticals
Course development
Interpersonal:
Collegial
Connections
Multiple authors, PIs
Co-teaching
Interdepartmental:
Cross-field
Connections
Centers
Joint majors, linked courses
Stakeholder:
Community
Connections
Research practice, applications
Civic engagement
Rhoten and Pfirman, 2007a,b
Identify Institutional Commitment to IDR
Commitment
and
Investments
Modest
Intermediate
Significant
Students and
Curriculum
Minor, Gen Ed.
Option
Concentration,
Special Major
Major, Gen Ed
Req.
Committee
Center, Program
Interdisciplinary
Department
Faculty
Affiliated Hire in
Disciplinary
Department,
Adjunct
Off-ladder,
Joint Hire
Tenure-track in
Interdisciplinary
Department
Research
Scientists
Soft-money
Support for
Single or Shortterm Project
Multi-year
Support
Administration
39
Institutioncommitted Career
Interdisciplinary
Research
Scientist Line
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?


Department does not feel as responsible
for hires sponsored by another source as
they do when they invest their own
resources at the outset

40
Burden on junior hire to figure out how the
units will get along
“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
Cross-Field
Women More Likely to
Hold Joint Appointments
(at UC Berkeley)



41
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
Craft Individual MOUs




42
Drafted before the search
begins
Completed and signed by all
for the hire letter
Reviewed at each review
stage
Included in the tenure dossier
Confront the Tenure/Promotion Issue
43
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2004, Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) Convocation
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

44