The Right Circumstances for Multidisciplinary Research Caroline L

The Right Circumstances for Multidisciplinary Research Caroline L. Park RN, Ph. D Associate Professor and Research Facilitator Centre for Nursing and Health Studies

The Wisdom of Crowds • Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them (Surowiecki, 2004: xiii).

Group, Collaborative, Multidisciplinary • multidisciplinary research is “the linkage of phenomena, research approaches, and conceptual tools that had previously been pursued independently”. Pickett et al, 1999: 302

Claimed Advantages • outcomes that are superior to a unidisciplinary team or a solitary researcher • “to address more effectively intractable social problems from a number of perspectives” Mac. Cleave, 2006: 1 • economic modeling experiments, have shown that diversity is more important than intelligence Hong and Page, 2004

Impetus for Multidisciplinary Research Teams • Funding Opportunities • Government and Professional Human resource priorities • Faculty Realignments • Changes in Unidisciplinary Faculty Priorities

Issues Relevant to Researchers • All of the issues inherent in any group work • Time, money and significant publications • Continued employment, promotion, and the attainment of tenure • Unspoken jealousies and perceived threats to someone’s position • Disagreement over ownership of ideas and data • There can only be one first author • “the central ethical problem (maintaining equity and justice)”. Bradley 1982: 87

• One does not want to waste time or to be involved in insignificant research, where one’s contribution may not be apparent or valued • Patience, trust, responsibility, and honesty • The perception that interdisciplinary science is less exacting. • Role conflict and ambivalence leads to sacrificing the collective for personal gain Bradley 1982: 87

• time necessary to learn about other disciplines and their vocabulary is frequently mentioned as an issue Naiman, 1999. • “some of these differences might be incommensurable; in other words one discipline’s research traditions, practices, and languages cannot be understood or explained in terms of the research traditions, practices and languages of another discipline without considerable distortion, incoherence or confusion”. Mac. Cleave, 2006: 2

Questions • Is it reasonable to expect truly diverse research teams to function together smoothly? • Are some team members marginalized both by discipline and methodology? • Is there true diversity or are the risks too high?

Core Premise • the utilization of reflexive practices such as shared written personal perspectives on the research topic, shared reflection about process and findings, and aggregated interpretation, holds the highest potential to establish the “right circumstances” for successful outcomes and experiences.

Strategies for Multidisciplinary Research Teams • • • Building the team Choosing the research question Developing the proposal Collecting the data Analyzing and making meaning of the data • Writing, reporting and disseminating

Building the team • The team leader must be willing to shoulder the load, and at times make tough decisions about the continuation of support or membership when team members are not fulfilling their responsibilities to the team. • A competent manager should be hired. Large, widely dispersed teams often require a great deal of administrative time. Cuneo, 2003 • .

• Surowiecki cautions against making any one team member dependent on any other for information. He believes that the smartest groups bring together people with not only diverse perspectives, but also the ability to stay independent of each other. This does not preclude bias and irrationality, which he says cannot hurt the group if the members are independent

• stemming from an individual’s personal dissatisfaction with the limitations of unidisciplinary research • an invitation to colleagues from other disciplines • multidisciplinary research groups frequently lose and gain members • bonding dynamics and team building are as important • strive to achieve a working language and understanding

Cultural Negotiation • Expect difference, • Embrace difference, • Create time and space to dialog across difference, • Conduct inquiry into the process, • Nurture the cultural negotiator, • Become a community of learners. Mac. Cleave, 2006: 10

Negotiating the “rules of engagement” • “map the territory” and one’s position in it • “interprofessional collaboration depends on conflicting factors, thus underscoring the complexity of professional allegiances. Conflicting beliefs and values foster collaboration while placing constraints on it”. D’Amour, 2005: 122

Choosing the research question • Hopefully, the learned respect for diversity will translate into respect for different conceptualizations, methods and methodologies. • The introduction of conceptual tools such as Constas’ (1988) Typology of Educational Inquiry, assist in exposing all possible choices relating to the question at hand.

Collecting the data • all players must be involved if changes are needed • “collaborative tending to communication, expectations, divisions of labor, networks of support, distribution of finances, geographical location, language, personality, position, and so on, none of which can be taken for granted” Mountz et al. , 2003: 42

Analyzing and making meaning of the data • independent thought about the data before group discourse. • a balance between the decentralization or independence required for each specialist on the team to come to their own initial conclusions on the meaning of the data and the group sharing and discourse required to tease out all possible meanings.

aggregating the meanings • a method which goes beyond consensus, which will “encourage tepid, lowestcommon-denominator solutions which offend no one rather than exciting everyone” Surowecki, 2004: 203. • must go beyond the smartest solution of the smartest person in the group, or it negates the purpose of bringing diverse experts together

• ideas that are not championed do not succeed; • group members unconsciously defer to both gender and rank; • ideas introduced first and reiterated the most, most frequently survive; • dissent is discomforting and frequently avoided.

• group participants must each vote, or participate in some form of priority ranking, of the alternative meanings. One way is for each group member to predict the percentage or strength of belief in each option and aggregate the totals.

Writing, reporting and disseminating • Hire a writer to attend all sessions and prepare the initial drafts of these documents • Usually alphabetical naming of authors • If a researcher reformulates the outcomes to relate to their specific discipline it seems logical that this researcher should put their name first on such individualized interpretations with the rest of the team following in alphabetical order

Measuring Success • The best measure, of course, is if the research outcomes lead to a desired behavioral or situational change • Does the interdisciplinary research relate socio cultural and biophysical patterns and processes in different ways?

Ask yourself the following: • Is the research question/concern appropriate for multidisciplinary inquiry? • What was/is the impetus behind the formation of this multidisciplinary research team? • Is there a clear leader of this multidisciplinary research team? • Which disciplines are represented on this multidisciplinary research team?

• Is there a hierarchy in this disciplinary structure? • Will I be free of influence if I join this team? • Do I have the time/patience required for multidisciplinary research? • Can I openly share my beliefs and biases within this team? • Will I bring a perspective that will improve/challenge the collective decision?

• Bradley, R. T. (1982) Ethical Problems in Team Research: A Structural analysis and an agenda for resolution. The Americans Sociologist, 17: 87 -94. • Constas, M. A. (1998) Deciphering Postmodern Educational Researcher, 27( 9): 36 -42. • Cuneo, C. (2003) Interdisciplinary Teams. University Affairs, November: 18 -21. • D’Amour, D. , Ferrada-Videlia, M. , Rodriguez, L. & Beailieu, M. (2005) The Conceptual Basis for Interprofessional Collaboration: Core Concepts and Theoretical Frameworks. Journal of Interprofessional Care, (May 2005) Supplement 1: 116 – 131. • Hong, L. & Page, S. E. (2004) Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers can Outperform Groups of High-ability Problem Solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46): 16385 -9.

• Mac. Cleave, A. (2006) Incommensurability in Cross Disciplinary Research: A Call for Cultural Negotiation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2): 1 -12. • Mountz, A. , Miyares, I. , Wright, R. & Bailey, A. (2003) Methodologically Becoming: Power, Knowledge and Team Research. Gender, Place and Culture, 10(1): 29 -46. • Pickett, S. T. A. , Burch, W. R. & Grove, J. M. (1999) Interdisciplinary Research: Maintaining the Constructive Impulse in a Culture of Criticism. Ecosystems, 2: 302 -307. • Surowiecki, J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds. Random House/Doubleday: New York.