Disciplinary capture and epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research: Lessons from central African conservation disputes

Understanding disciplinary perspectives: a framework to develop skills for interdisciplinary research collaborations of medical experts and engineers

BACKGROUND

Health professionals need to be prepared for interdisciplinary research collaborations aimed at the development and implementation of medical technology. Expertise is highly domain-specific, and learned by being immersed in professional practice. Therefore, the approaches and results from one domain are not easily understood by experts from another domain. Interdisciplinary collaboration in medical research faces not only institutional, but also cognitive and epistemological barriers. This is one of the reasons why interdisciplinary and interprofessional research collaborations are so difficult. To explain the cognitive and epistemological barriers, we introduce the concept of disciplinary perspectives. Making explicit the disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in interdisciplinary collaborations helps to clarify the specific approach of each expert, thereby improving mutual understanding.

METHOD

We developed a framework for making disciplinary perspectives of experts participating in an interdisciplinary research collaboration explicit. The applicability of the framework has been tested in an interdisciplinary medical research project aimed at the development and implementation of diffusion MRI for the diagnosis of kidney cancer, where the framework was applied to analyse and articulate the disciplinary perspectives of the experts involved.

RESULTS

We propose a general framework, in the form of a series of questions, based on new insights from the philosophy of science into the epistemology of interdisciplinary research. We explain these philosophical underpinnings in order to clarify the cognitive and epistemological barriers of interdisciplinary research collaborations. In addition, we present a detailed example of the use of the framework in a concrete interdisciplinary research project aimed at developing a diagnostic technology. This case study demonstrates the applicability of the framework in interdisciplinary research projects.

CONCLUSION

Interdisciplinary research collaborations can be facilitated by a better understanding of how an expert's disciplinary perspectives enables and guides their specific approach to a problem. Implicit disciplinary perspectives can and should be made explicit in a systematic manner, for which we propose a framework that can be used by disciplinary experts participating in interdisciplinary research project. Furthermore, we suggest that educators can explore how the framework and philosophical underpinning can be implemented in HPE to support the development of students' interdisciplinary expertise.

Facilitating biodiversity conservation through partnerships to achieve transformative outcomes

Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long-term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.

Untangling social-ecological interactions: A methods portfolio approach to tackling contemporary sustainability challenges in fisheries

Meeting the objectives of sustainable fisheries management requires attention to the complex interactions between humans, institutions and ecosystems that give rise to fishery outcomes. Traditional approaches to studying fisheries often do not fully capture, nor focus on these complex interactions between people and ecosystems. Despite advances in the scope and scale of interactions encompassed by more holistic methods, for example ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches, no single method can adequately capture the complexity of human-nature interactions. Approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches are necessary to generate a deeper understanding of these interactions and illuminate pathways to address fisheries sustainability challenges. However, combining methods is inherently challenging and requires understanding multiple methods from different, often disciplinarily distinct origins, demanding reflexivity of the researchers involved. Social-ecological systems' research has a history of utilising combinations of methods across the social and ecological realms to account for spatial and temporal dynamics, uncertainty and feedbacks that are key components of fisheries. We describe several categories of analytical methods (statistical modelling, network analysis, dynamic modelling, qualitative analysis and controlled behavioural experiments) and highlight their applications in fisheries research, strengths and limitations, data needs and overall objectives. We then discuss important considerations of a methods portfolio development process, including reflexivity, epistemological and ontological concerns and illustrate these considerations via three case studies. We show that, by expanding their methods portfolios, researchers will be better equipped to study the complex interactions shaping fisheries and contribute to solutions for sustainable fisheries management.

Interdisciplinary Confusion and Resolution in the Context of Moral Machines

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have fueled widespread academic discourse on the ethics of AI within and across a diverse set of disciplines. One notable subfield of AI ethics is machine ethics, which seeks to implement ethical considerations into AI systems. However, since different research efforts within machine ethics have discipline-specific concepts, practices, and goals, the resulting body of work is pestered with conflict and confusion as opposed to fruitful synergies. The aim of this paper is to explore ways to alleviate these issues, both on a practical and theoretical level of analysis. First, we describe two approaches to machine ethics: the philosophical approach and the engineering approach and show how tensions between the two arise due to discipline specific practices and aims. Using the concept of disciplinary capture, we then discuss potential promises and pitfalls to cross-disciplinary collaboration. Drawing on recent work in philosophy of science, we finally describe how metacognitive scaffolds can be used to avoid epistemological obstacles and foster innovative collaboration in AI ethics in general and machine ethics in particular.

Productivity and interdisciplinary impacts of Organized Research Units

Organized Research Units (ORUs) are nondepartmental units utilized by U.S. research universities to support interdisciplinary research initiatives, among other goals. This study examined the impacts of ORUs at one large public research university, the University of California, Davis (UC Davis), using a large corpus of journal article metadata and abstracts for both faculty affiliated with UCD ORUs and a comparison set of other faculty. Using regression analysis, I find that ORUs appeared to increase the number of coauthors of affiliated faculty, but did not appear to directly affect publication or citation counts. Next, I frame interdisciplinarity in terms of a notion of discursive space, and use a topic model approach to situate researchers within this discursive space. The evidence generally indicates that ORUs promoted multidisciplinarity rather than interdisciplinarity. In the conclusion, drawing on work in philosophy of science on inter- and multidisciplinarity, I argue that multidisciplinarity is not necessarily inferior to interdisciplinarity.

Climate change research and the search for solutions: rethinking interdisciplinarity

Growing political pressure to find solutions to climate change is leading to increasing calls for multiple disciplines, in particular those that are not traditionally part of climate change research, to contribute new knowledge systems that can offer deeper and broader insights to address the problem. Recognition of the complexity of climate change compels researchers to draw on interdisciplinary knowledge that marries natural sciences with social sciences and humanities. Yet most interdisciplinary approaches fail to adequately merge the framings of the disparate disciplines, resulting in reductionist messages that are largely devoid of context, and hence provide incomplete and misleading analysis for decision-making. For different knowledge systems to work better together toward climate solutions, we need to reframe the way questions are asked and research pursued, in order to inform action without slipping into reductionism. We suggest that interdisciplinarity needs to be rethought. This will require accepting a plurality of narratives, embracing multiple disciplinary perspectives, and shifting expectations of public messaging, and above all looking to integrate the appropriate disciplines that can help understand human systems in order to better mediate action.

"Same same but different"? On the questionable but crucial differentiation between ethical and social aspects in health technology assessment

INTRODUCTION

Within health technology assessment (HTA), the demarcation of ethical and social aspects in two separate domains is a given fact. While an overlapping of ethical and social aspects is possible, this also raises theoretical and methodological questions, such as why overlaps happen (on the basis of which understanding of ethical and social aspects), or whether they are legitimate from a methodological point of view.

METHODS

We analyzed, on a basis of purposive sampling, a) two well-known HTA frameworks (HTA Core Model, INTEGRATE-HTA), b) methodological literature about ethical and/or social aspects in HTA, and c) published HTA reports from the German DAHTA database and the international CRD database regarding statements on the understanding (definition/characterization) and relationship between ethical and social aspects.

RESULTS

The frameworks used identical definitions for ethical aspects but deviated when it comes to social aspects. Methodological papers do not always provide a definition of social and ethical aspects. In the context of ethical aspects, they often refer back to ethics as a base discipline that deals with the motives and consequences of good and bad actions for ethical aspects, while for social aspects, there is orientation towards already existing checklists and methods, without reference to a base discipline such as sociology. The analyzed HTA reports barely offered details on their understanding of ethical or social aspects (7% of n = 33).

DISCUSSION

The problem of defining/characterizing and differentiating ethical and social aspects exists in both theory and practice. The impression is that little attention is paid to demarcations and overlaps, and that also the methodological literature has not yet thoroughly addressed the issue. While there are also pragmatic reasons for the possible ambiguity between the ethical and the social domains, deeper epistemological issues related to the multi-/interdisciplinarity nature of HTA will have to be considered, too, such as the danger of "disciplinary capture" (pressure on some domains and their basic disciplines, e.g., ethics, to adopt the concepts and standards of other domains that are more dominant in HTA, e.g., efficacy assessment/evidenced-based medicine).

CONCLUSION

The domains in HTA reports should be better described epistemologically and brought into a coherent relationship with each other. This is important to avoid unreasonable overlapping and possible problematic redundancy. Further, this could help with questions of adequate expertise and methods for the processing of all relevant information for solid technology assessment.

Practical actions for fostering cross-disciplinary global health research: lessons from a narrative literature review

Introduction

Global health research involves disciplines within and beyond the health sciences. A cross-disciplinary collaborative research approach enables an interchange of knowledge and experience and stimulates innovative responses to complex health challenges. However, there is little robust evidence to guide the design and implementation of cross-disciplinary research in global health, hampering effective collective action. This review synthesised evidence on practical actions for fostering cross-disciplinary research to provide guidance on the design and implementation of research in global health.

Methods

We searched five electronic databases using key words. The search included original research and research notes articles in English. We used a framework adapted from the socio-ecological model and thematic synthesis for data analysis.

Results

Thirty-six original research and 27 research notes articles were included in the review. These were predominantly from high-income countries and indicated that practical actions on fostering cross-disciplinary research are closely linked to leadership and teamwork which should be planned and implemented at research team and institutional levels. The publications also indicated that individual qualities such as being receptive to new ideas and funders’ power and influence have practical implications for conducting cross-disciplinary research. Practical actions that individuals, research team leaders, academic institutions and funders can undertake to foster cross-disciplinary research were identified.

Conclusion

Our review found evidence from high-income countries, not low-and-middle-income countries, about practices that can improve cross-disciplinary research in global health. Critical knowledge gaps exist around how leadership and teamwork processes can better integrate expertise from different disciplines to make cross-disciplinary research more effective.

Improving philosophical dialogue interventions to better resolve problematic value pluralism in collaborative environmental science

Environmental problems often outstrip the abilities of any single scientist to understand, much less address them. As a result, collaborations within, across, and beyond the environmental sciences are an increasingly important part of the environmental science landscape. Here, we explore an insufficiently recognized and particularly challenging barrier to collaborative environmental science: value pluralism, the presence of non-trivial differences in the values that collaborators bring to bear on project decisions. We argue that resolving the obstacles posed by value pluralism to collaborative environmental science requires detecting and coordinating the underlying problematic value differences. We identify five ways that a team might coordinate their problematic value differences and argue that, whichever mode is adopted, it ought to be governed by participatory virtues, pragmatic resolve, and moral concern. Relying on our experiences with the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, as well as with other dialogical approaches that support team inquiry, we defend the claim that philosophical dialogue among collaborators can go a long way towards helping teams of environmental scientists and fellow travelers detect their problematic value differences. Where dialogical approaches fare less well is in helping teams coordinate these differences. We close by describing several principles for augmenting philosophical dialogue with other methods, and we list several of these methods in an appendix with brief descriptions and links for further learning. Overall, the article makes three main contributions to the research collaboration and values in science literatures: (1) It deepens our understanding of problematic value pluralism in team science; (2) It provides actionable guidance and methods for improving values-oriented philosophical dialogue interventions; and (3) It demonstrates one way of doing engaged philosophy.

Perception and Conflict in Conservation: The Rashomon Effect

Conflict is a common feature in conservation and resource management. Environmental conflicts are frequently attributed to differences in values; however, variability in the perception of facts, rooted in social and cultural differences also underlies conflicts. Such differences in perception have been termed the Rashomon effect after the Kurosawa film. In the present article, we explore a conservation Rashomon effect—a phenomenon that results from a combination of differences in perspective, plausible alternative perspectives of a conservation issue, and the absence of evidence to elevate one perspective above others. As a remedy to the Rashomon effect, policy-makers have turned to scientists as honest brokers who share a common environmental reality. We evaluate this supposition and suggest that scientists, themselves, display Rashomon effects. We suggest that Rashomon effects can be reduced by acknowledging the plurality of reality, embracing epistemic pluralism, and prioritizing an inclusive process of resource management.

Preparing interdisciplinary leadership for a sustainable future

Urgent sustainability challenges require effective leadership for inter- and trans-disciplinary (ITD) institutions. Based on the diverse experiences of 20 ITD institutional leaders and specific case studies, this article distills key lessons learned from multiple pathways to building successful programs. The lessons reflect both the successes and failures our group has experienced, to suggest how to cultivate appropriate and effective leadership, and generate the resources necessary for leading ITD programs. We present two contrasting pathways toward ITD organizations: one is to establish a new organization and the other is to merge existing organizations. We illustrate how both benefit from a real-world focus, with multiple examples of trajectories of ITD organizations. Our diverse international experiences demonstrate ways to cultivate appropriate leadership qualities and skills, especially the ability to create and foster vision beyond the status quo; collaborative leadership and partnerships; shared culture; communications to multiple audiences; appropriate monitoring and evaluation; and perseverance. We identified five kinds of resources for success: (1) intellectual resources; (2) institutional policies; (3) financial resources; (4) physical infrastructure; and (5) governing boards. We provide illustrations based on our extensive experience in supporting success and learning from failure, and provide a framework that articulates the major facets of leadership in inter- and trans-disciplinary organizations: learning, supporting, sharing, and training.

Introduction to the Special Issue: The role of seed dispersal in plant populations: perspectives and advances in a changing world

Despite the importance of seed dispersal as a driving process behind plant community assembly, our understanding of the role of seed dispersal in plant population persistence and spread remains incomplete. As a result, our ability to predict the effects of global change on plant populations is hampered. We need to better understand the fundamental link between seed dispersal and population dynamics in order to make predictive generalizations across species and systems, to better understand plant community structure and function, and to make appropriate conservation and management responses related to seed dispersal. To tackle these important knowledge gaps, we established the CoDisperse Network and convened an interdisciplinary, NSF-sponsored Seed Dispersal Workshop in 2016, during which we explored the role of seed dispersal in plant population dynamics (NSF DEB Award # 1548194). In this Special Issue, we consider the current state of seed dispersal ecology and identify the following collaborative research needs: (i) the development of a mechanistic understanding of the movement process influencing dispersal of seeds; (ii) improved quantification of the relative influence of seed dispersal on plant fitness compared to processes occurring at other life history stages; (iii) an ability to scale from individual plants to ecosystems to quantify the influence of dispersal on ecosystem function; and (iv) the incorporation of seed dispersal ecology into conservation and management strategies.

What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences

In this paper we take a close look at current interdisciplinary modeling practices in the environmental sciences, and suggest that closer attention needs to be paid to the nature of scientific practices when investigating and planning interdisciplinarity. While interdisciplinarity is often portrayed as a medium of novel and transformative methodological work, current modeling strategies in the environmental sciences are conservative, avoiding methodological conflict, while confining interdisciplinary interactions to a relatively small set of pre-existing modeling frameworks and strategies (a process we call crystallization). We argue that such practices can be rationalized as responses in part to cognitive constraints which restrict interdisciplinary work. We identify four salient integrative modeling strategies in environmental sciences, and argue that this crystallization, while contradicting somewhat the novel goals many have for interdisciplinarity, makes sense when considered in the light of common disciplinary practices and cognitive constraints. These results provide cause to rethink in more concrete methodological terms what interdisciplinarity amounts to, and what kinds of interdisciplinarity are obtainable in the environmental sciences and elsewhere.

Filter bubbles in interdisciplinary research: a case study on climate and society

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to compare the content of Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) by searching the interdisciplinary field of climate and ancient societies. The authors aim at analyzing the retrieved documents by open availability, received citations, co-authors and type of publication.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors searched the services by a defined set of keyword. Data were retrieved and analyzed using a variety of bibliometric tools such as Publish or Perish, Sci2Tool and Gephi. In order to determine the proportion of open full texts based on the WoS result, the authors relocated the records in GS, using an off-campus internet connection.

Findings

The authors found that the top 1,000 downloadable and analyzable GS items matched poorly with the items retrieved by WoS. Based on this approach (subject searching), the services appeared complementary rather than similar. Even though the first search results differ considerably by service, almost each single WoS title could be located in GS. Based on GS’s full text recognition, the authors found 74 percent of WoS items openly available and the citation median of these was twice as high as for documents behind paywalls.

Research limitations/implications

Even though the study is a case study, the authors believe that findings are transferable to other interdisciplinary fields. The share of freely available documents, however, may depend on the investigated field and its culture toward open publishing.

Practical implications

Discovering the literature of interdisciplinary fields puts scholars in a challenging situation and requires a better understanding of the existing infrastructures. The authors hope that the paper contributes to that and can advise the research and library communities.

Originality/value

In light of an overwhelming and exponentially growing amount of literature, the bibliometric approach is new in a library context.

Conceptual and terminological confusion around personalised medicine: a coping strategy

BACKGROUND

The idea of personalised medicine (PM) has gathered momentum recently, attracting funding and generating hopes as well as scepticism. As PM gives rise to differing interpretations, there have been several attempts to clarify the concept. In an influential paper published in this journal, Schleidgen and colleagues have proposed a precise and narrow definition of PM on the basis of a systematic literature review. Given that their conclusion is at odds with those of other recent attempts to understand PM, we consider whether their systematic review gives them an edge over competing interpretations.

DISCUSSION

We have found some methodological weaknesses and questionable assumptions in Schleidgen and colleagues' attempt to provide a more specific definition of PM. Our perplexities concern the lack of criteria for assessing the epistemic strength of the definitions that they consider, as well as the logical principles used to extract a more precise definition, the narrowness of the pool from which they have drawn their empirical data, and finally their overlooking the fact that definitions depend on the context of use. We are also worried that their ethical assumption that only patients' interests are legitimate is too simplistic and drives all other stakeholders' interests-including those that are justifiable-underground, thus compromising any hope of a transparent and fair negotiation among a plurality of actors and interests.

CONCLUSION

As an alternative to the shortcomings of attempting a semantic disciplining of the concept we propose a pragmatic approach. Rather than considering PM to be a scientific concept in need of precise demarcation, we look at it as an open and negotiable concept used in a variety of contexts including at the level of orienting research goals and policy objectives. We believe that since PM is still more an ideal than an achieved reality, a plurality of visions is to be expected and we need to pay attention to the people, reasons and interests behind these alternative conceptions. In other words, the logic and politics of PM cannot be disentangled and disagreements need to be tackled addressing the normative and strategic conflicts behind them.

Is it possible to give scientific solutions to Grand Challenges? On the idea of grand challenges for life science research

This paper argues that challenges that are grand in scope such as "lifelong health and wellbeing", "climate action", or "food security" cannot be addressed through scientific research only. Indeed scientific research could inhibit addressing such challenges if scientific analysis constrains the multiple possible understandings of these challenges into already available scientific categories and concepts without translating between these and everyday concerns. This argument builds on work in philosophy of science and race to postulate a process through which non-scientific notions become part of science. My aim is to make this process available to scrutiny: what I call founding everyday ideas in science is both culturally and epistemologically conditioned. Founding transforms a common idea into one or more scientifically relevant ones, which can be articulated into descriptively thicker and evaluatively deflated terms and enable operationalisation and measurement. The risk of founding however is that it can invisibilise or exclude from realms of scientific scrutiny interpretations that are deemed irrelevant, uninteresting or nonsensical in the domain in question-but which may remain salient for addressing grand-in-scope challenges. The paper considers concepts of "wellbeing" in development economics versus in gerontology to illustrate this process.

Practical integration: The art of balancing values, institutions and knowledge - lessons from the History of British Public Health and Town Planning

The paper uses two historical examples, public health (1840-1880) and town planning (1945-1975) in Britain, to analyse the challenges faced by goal-driven research, an increasingly important trend in science policy, as exemplified by the prominence of calls for addressing Grand Challenges. Two key points are argued. (1) Given that the aim of research addressing social or global problems is to contribute to improving things, this research should include all the steps necessary to bring science and technology to fruition. This need is captured by the idea of practical integration, which brings this type of research under the umbrella of collective practical reason rather than under the aegis of science. Achieving practical integration is difficult for many reasons: the complexity of social needs, the plurality of values at stake, the limitation of our knowledge, the elusive nature of the skills needed to deal with uncertainty, incomplete information and asymmetries of power. Nevertheless, drawing from the lessons of the case studies, it is argued that (2) practical integration needs a proper balance between values, institutions and knowledge: i.e. a combination of mutual support and mutual limitation. Pursuing such a balance provides a flexible strategy for approximating practical integration.

Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science

The concept of Mode 2 has often been seen as especially applicable to fields addressing grand challenges, such as climate change. Being a relatively new field-interdisciplinary in its approach, and focused on addressing such issues-sustainability science would appear to be a case in point. The aim of this paper is twofold: 1) to explore the perceived relation between Mode 2 and sustainability science, and 2) to advance the discussion of Mode 2 from a philosophical perspective. To address these questions we focus on three characteristic features of Mode 2: the notion of a distinct, but evolving framework; boundary crossing; and a problem solving capacity "on the move". We report the results of a survey carried out amongst leading sustainability scientists. The survey gives insight into the scientists' perception of Mode 2, their perception of their own field of sustainability science and the relation between the two. The free text answers reveal a tension within the field of sustainability science: with developments both towards Mode 1 and Mode 2 science. We conclude that the implementation of inter- and trans-disciplinarity is challenged by institutional and conceptual factors alike.