Increasing Opportunity through Interdisciplinary Research: Climbing Down and Shattering a Tower of Babel

Abstract

In today’s complex funding world, researchers, especially biomedical researchers, are looking toward solving societal problems using powerful new technologies. Exploring problems and questions not confined to a single discipline has set the environment to support collaborative approaches leading to interdisciplinary solutions (Drake and Donohue, 1996). Multidisciplinary teams have always provided unique opportunities for researchers across disciplines to communicate with one another (Gray, 1989). Interdisciplinary approaches set the stage for innovation by uniting together to create new tools, develop new disciplines and ultimately open new avenues of research. While multidisciplinary research brings disciplines together, interdisciplinary research cuts across the disciplines and fosters the integration of ideas. Lee et al. (2009) paper, look at incorporating collaborator concepts into informatics in support of translational interdisciplinary biomedical research. They discuss the complexities of taking this approach to doing research and look into the environmental factors needing to be in place to support complex collaborations (i.e., data integration and analysis, data sharing, management, and security. In addition, they discuss the need for appropriate training and long-term planning as necessary factors to achieving success. Increasing support at the institutional level begins the process of shattering the tower of babble. As interdisciplinary projects gain recognition and visibility through publications in major journals (e.g., Science, Nature) because they often offer novel approaches to traditional problems, federal agencies have increased funding opportunities for interdisciplinary research through the creation of centers of excellence and the encouragement of building consortia in anticipation for translational research (Finholt and Olson, 1997). The National Institutes of Health Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) initiative has increased funding opportunities in support of translational research efforts. Although there is increased interest and support for interdisciplinarity to occur, it is not without problems. As Lee et al. (2009) suggest, scientists are often unwilling to share and trust each other in today’s highly competitive funding world. To help deal with these types of issues, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has established a formal publication and data sharing policy in support of eliminating barriers often associated with collaborative efforts. An unwillingness to adapt research tools that are unfamiliar adds to the difficulty of utilizing necessary core technologies (Hara et al., 2003). Team members are frequently hampered by distance and unless a strong infrastructure is in place there is often a day to day communication disconnect allowing for disparate systems to dictate workflow rather than having a synergistic approach (Gibbons et al., 1994). To assure the success of interdisciplinary/translational research requires agencies and foundations to provide a strong funding base making it possible for a research team to tackle such problems (Jeffery, 2003). In addition, training opportunities must be provided by the large federal agencies such as The National Institutes of Health Roadmap (NIH; www.roadmap.nih.gov) and The National Science Foundation (NSF) to increase institutional understanding and to ensure output of experts trained in appropriate methodologies. Bracken and Oughton’s (2009) paper on interdisciplinary research made a case for framing and reframing questions and approaches. They highlighted the changing climate on research funding as an impetus for the expansion of interdisciplinary approaches. They provided data from 12 semi-structured interviews with leaders of interdisciplinary research projects that crossed the natural and social sciences. These interviews all occurred within the United Kingdom. Their purpose was to explore the ways in which researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds approached the framing of interdisciplinary questions. They pointed out that “the differences in research cultures and established habits implied very different starting points for the initiation of a research idea” making the case for framing as a tool to facilitate these differences from becoming problematic. This paper built upon their 2006 research and concluded successful projects were able to maintain strong communication over the life time of a project and that self-awareness, and a willingness to be questioned by others was essential components for team building. They emphasized the need to relate different epistemologies and methods not president in disciplinary focused projects to support an expanded approach to understanding how people work well together if research teams are to be strong. Sa (2008) points out that interdisciplinary strategies in U. S. research universities, emphasized the need for universities to change their current structures by reducing barriers to investigations where research crosses disciplines. He looked at the two recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences (2005) and the Association of American Universities (2005) on how universities can facilitate interdisciplinary research. Innovation calls for new pathways to be opened; engaging scholars with each other so that “leaps in scientific progress can be made and greater economic and social benefits to society” can occur. In his paper he speaks to the ongoing conflict between traditional disciplinary approaches that lead to a continuum of fragmentation of knowledge and the formation of department silos as opposed to centers and research units fostering collaboration. To address this type of fragmentation and to help create linkages throughout the campus, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, developed an Office of Research Development in 1996. The purpose of this new program was to...