Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden

Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden Examensarbete i Håll...
Author: Chastity Carson
1 downloads 2 Views 3MB Size
Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden

Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 109

Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden

Tatiana Sokolova

Tatiana Sokolova

Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences Master Thesis E, in Sustainable Development, 30 credits Printed at Department of Earth Sciences, Geotryckeriet, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2013.

Master’s Thesis E, 30 credits

Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 109

Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden

Tatiana Sokolova

Supervisor: Gloria Gallardo Fernández Evaluator: Eren Zink

 

Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden Tatiana Sokolova Sokolova, T., 2012: Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, Nr. 109, 63 pp, 30 ECTS/hp Abstract The purpose of the study is to analyse an interdisciplinary research (IDR) project in order to identify what constitutes a strategy of integration of disciplinary insights. Through interviews, observations and analysis of scientific articles produced by the researchers, the study explores the processes of IDR and relates them to psychological and sociological theories of group research. The results show that researchers employ an emergent strategy which they design ad hoc, and which consists of certain patterns of behaviour that allow them to navigate conflict and partially integrate their insights into the problem. The study offers a number of recommendations that might be useful to take into consideration when designing an IDR project. Keywords: sustainable development, interdisciplinary research, philosophy of science, science and technology studies. Tatiana Sokolova, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden Tatiana Sokolova Sokolova, T., 2012: Achieving integration in interdisciplinary research: Strategy or emergence? A case study of interdisciplinary research in Sweden. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, Nr. 109, 63 pp, 30 ECTS/hp Summary In the past two decades sustainable development became a prominent political agenda. For science, aspirations for sustainability mean the necessity of synergies between different academic disciplines. In order to provide society and policy-makers with adequate analysis of complex social, economic and environmental processes, scientific projects of today require participation of representatives of social, natural and technical sciences and the humanities. The current study explores an example of such an interdisciplinary research project, with the aim to see what strategies researchers use in order to integrate the insights from various disciplines in a new coherent whole. The study finds out that most of the strategy is emergent, in the sense that researchers do not fully envision what difficulties they will encounter, and have to create ad hoc mechanisms to cope with the complexity of IDR process. As a result of the study, a number of recommendations are offered that researchers might consider when they are engaged in an interdisciplinary project. Keywords: sustainable development, interdisciplinary research, philosophy of science, science and technology studies. Tatiana Sokolova, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

 

Content 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Historical and theoretical background of IDR ............................................................................ 4 2.1. Definition of IDR ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Some insights into the history of interdisciplinarity ...................................................... 6 2.3. IDR: a controversial enterprise or a new mode of knowledge creation? ....................... 7 2.4. Theoretical foundations of IDR ..................................................................................... 9 2.4.1. Theories from psychology ................................................................................. 10 2.4.2. Theories from sociology .................................................................................... 11 2.4.3. The science of team science .............................................................................. 13 2.4.4. Science and technology studies ......................................................................... 15 2.5. The nature and basis of IDR (conclusions) .................................................................... 16 3. Interdisciplinary integration: strategy, emergence and emergent strategies ............................... 18 3.1. Definition of integration................................................................................................. 18 3.2. Strategies of integration and the centrality of conflict in IDR ....................................... 21 3.3. The concept of emergence in IDR.................................................................................. 24 3.4. Emergent strategies ........................................................................................................ 28 3.5. Integration: strategy and emergence (conclusions) ........................................................ 28 4. The practice of interdisciplinary research: Case analysis ........................................................... 30 4.1. Description of the methodology and its relevance ......................................................... 30 4.2. Description of the case ................................................................................................... 31 4.3. Project strategy ............................................................................................................... 33 4.3.1. Interdisciplinary intention ................................................................................. 33 4.3.2. Planning and organisation of the research process ............................................ 34 4.3.3. Emergent strategy patterns ................................................................................ 35 4.4. Challenges of IDR .......................................................................................................... 36 37 4.4.1. Methodological challenges ................................................................................ 4.4.2. Conceptual misunderstandings .......................................................................... 37 4.4.3. Theoretical challenges ....................................................................................... 38 4.4.4. Ontological conflicts ......................................................................................... 38 4.4.5. Epistemological conflicts .................................................................................. 39 4.4.6. Problems of identity, research culture and areas of expertise ........................... 40 4.4.7. Other issues ....................................................................................................... 42 4.5. Result of IDR ................................................................................................................. 43 4.5.1. Integration ......................................................................................................... 43 4.5.2. Personal learnings.............................................................................................. 45 5. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 46 6. Discussion, limitations of the current study, and reflection ........................................................ 49 7. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................ 52 7.1. Integration ...................................................................................................................... 52 7.2. Strategy .......................................................................................................................... 52 7.3. Emergent patterns and the use of emergence as a concept ............................................ 54 7.4. Recommendations for IDR on the basis of the case study ............................................. 55 7.5. Conclusions for theory of IDR and the suggestions for future studies .......................... 56 References ....................................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix 1. Interview guidelines ................................................................................................... 63

Acknowledgements I express gratitude to the team of researchers whose project I studied for generously devoting me their time and sharing their experiences. Their knowledge and insights build a substantial part of this thesis, and I can only hope that I have managed to do justice to them in my interpretations. I thank Gloria Gallardo Fernández for enormous support, and extremely attentive and enriching supervision of my work which allowed me to navigate a completely new field. I am grateful to Eren Zink whose comments have been invaluable for a critical reflection on the results of my research and for envisioning new opportunities that my topic offers.

1. Introduction In the 1960s student revolts swept Western universities, demanding that education and science become more holistic and oriented towards societal problems, and that rigid disciplinary divisions be eliminated. At the time, academia underwent transformational reforms – even if only to make a step back after the protests calmed down (Weingart and Stehr, 2000). Today, in the presence of unprecedented social and environmental challenges we might be witnessing something that Klein (1990, p. 54) refers to as 'quiet revolutions', whereby our understanding of science, its function and methodology is rapidly changing – again. In recent years the number of interdisciplinary research (IDR) projects has significantly increased (Fiore, 2008). Porter and Rafols (2009) show that the number of disciplines cited in a given academic article has grown at the rate of 50% in the past 30 years, even though this growth is gradual in the sense that the majority of citations occur across neighbouring disciplines. In terms of evolution of science, IDR is sometimes referred to as a new mode of scientific activity (Fiore, 2008). The international political agenda of sustainable development has interdisciplinarity on its radar. The most comprehensive document on sustainable development for the past two decades, Agenda 21, in the Chapter entitled 'Science for Sustainable Development' highlights the role science is called to play in informing environmental and developmental policies. This role has to be ensured, according to the document, by interdisciplinary collaboration between scientists and, more specifically, by developing research focused on socio-economic aspects, uniting traditional and scientific knowledge, and 'strengthening interdisciplinary research related to environmental degradation and rehabilitation'. Literature on sustainability research highlights the indispensability of IDR and transdisciplinary studies for answering the growing societal concern over the urgent problems of today (Schoolman et al., 2012; Lam, Walker and Hills, 2012; Scholz et al, 2006). The fact that sustainability research has to deal with problems involving complex interrelations of environmental, social, economic, cultural, and ethical issues makes IDR a cornerstone of sustainability studies. Thus, political discourse on sustainability defines IDR as a necessary tool for the studying of complex problems. Complexity is a key term for the context of interdisciplinarity. Berkes, Colding, and Folke (2003) suggest that modern science has proved helpless in the face of complex problems, no matter how successful scientific enterprise has seemed in the previous decades; new, interdisciplinary skills and forms of collaboration are required to address such problems. Newell (2001) urges that the role of IDR is to study complex systems, and that the epistemology of IDR is rooted in complexity. How can success of IDR be measured? The main criterion of success in IDR is the ability to achieve integration of disciplinary insights, and arrive at a new, coherent and holistic understanding of an investigated problem (Repko, 2012). Such integration is radically different from a complementary disciplinary analysis; instead, it presents a synthesis which is more complex than a mere sum of its parts. This integrationist view 1

of interdisciplinarity is held against a generalist approach, according to which any research involving different disciplines is IDR (examples). In this paper, the integrationist approach will be adopted. The reason for this lies in the fact that understanding interdisciplinarity as the synthesis, or integration, of insights allows to distinguish it from multidisciplinarity, which does not have synthesis as a goal, but usually only an analysis from different perspectives. Even though such a way of dealing with scientific problems is fully relevant in some cases, it can be presumed that for the understanding of the complex problems of sustainability multidisciplinarity will not suffice. How is integration achieved? On the one hand, integration is a deliberate and strategic process, whereby researchers state integration as their goal and develop a plan of achieving it. Over the past two decades, thick books have been written, providing researchers with guidelines for setting up the research design and integrating results (Klein, 1990; Repko, 2012). On the other hand, integration can be a creative and emergent process in which success depends on intuition, empathy and flexibility, rather than rational analysis and planning. Which of the two approaches do researchers actually follow in practice? The purpose of the current paper is to study a specific case of IDR, addressing the following questions:  Do researchers design and follow a strategy to achieve interdisciplinary integration?  If yes, what does this strategy look like?  If no, how is IDR process realised in the absence of such strategy? The paper aims to contribute to the practical and theoretical knowledge about strategic planning and conditions for emergence in IDR, which will be useful for researchers engaging in interdisciplinary work, namely:  provide guidelines concerning the most substantial aspects of strategic planning of IDR;  provide guidelines concerning conditions for integration to emerge as a result of interdisciplinary process;  explore the theoretical implications of using the concepts of strategy and emergence in IDR. From the theoretical perspective, the paper will address a possible analogy between emergence in complex systems and integration in IDR. However, the theories and concepts will only act as a referential frame, guiding the study and providing a background; the study does not attempt to formulate and test a specific hypothesis with regard to the theories. The study will also help to answer two concerns. First, Bromme (2000) urges that empirical exploration of IDR lags behind the efforts of institutions to promote and encourage it. Second, Klein (1990) suggests that there should be more narratives describing the processes of IDR, expanding the database of existing studies of interdisciplinarity for creating new explanations of its nature and new guidelines for its practice, and highlighting patterns of interaction among disciplines. 2

The methods of the current thesis are literature review and case study. The main research techniques include interviews, observations, and analysis of articles and documentation. Case study methodology was chosen because it is ideal for understanding complex social phenomena and small group behaviour, well-suited for study of processes, especially organisational, exploratory in nature: applied to phenomena about which not much is known; case studies are descriptive and provide a lot of detail, and help answer a question 'how' or 'why' (Yin, 2003). It was considered that the best way to find out about the process of the team research is to ask its participants; the case study approach will allow to explore the IDR process holistically, and to focus on the actual experiences of the researchers themselves. The interdisciplinary research project analysed in the current study was conducted by a team of researches in Sweden. The project was chosen on the basis of convenience sampling (Bernard, 2006): access to it was readily available at the time of the initiation of the study; however, it was of high relevance to the purposes of the current study. The project was performed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers, including researchers from natural and social sciences; the problem of investigation required expertise of a number of disciplines; the project had a limited time scope, and approaching the final stage of integration, where the results could already be analysed. The project analysed the issue of sustainability in three countries of the global South, focusing on the ways market commodities are produced and how such ways of production influence the local socio-ecological systems. The paper is organised in the following way. Chapter 2 provides historical and theoretical background of IDR, including its definition, its place in the system of scientific knowledge, and an overview of theories from psychology, sociology and the science of team science that provide insights into describing its nature. Chapter 3 introduces the concept of integration of disciplinary insights, elements of strategies of such integration suggested by the literature, and addresses the use of the concept of emergence and emergent strategies with regard to IDR. Chapter 4 is dedicated to the analysis of the IDR case, including its strategy, emergent patterns and the level of interdisciplinary integration. Chapter 5 summarises the findings; Chapter 6 offers discussion, addresses limitations and provides a reflection on the process of the study itself. Finally, Chapter 7 concludes and offers recommendations for IDR and for future studies of IDR.

3

2. Historical and theoretical background of IDR The current section will put IDR into perspective by defining what it is, and by providing a glimpse into its history: what was before it appeared, why and how it came into being, and what might be its future. Moreover, we will look at IDR in the broader context of science to show how it functions as a part of a bigger system of knowledge production. Finally, we will explore the theoretical foundations of interdisciplinarity and touch upon the various perspectives on its nature and process. 2.1. Definition of IDR Nissani (1997, p. 203) delineates 'four realms' of academic discourse concerned with interdisciplinarity: knowledge (familiarity with components of various disciplines); research (combining such components to create new knowledge); education (creating new educational programmes) and theory (concerned with interdisciplinarity as a study object). The current paper focuses on interdisciplinary research; educational and institutional aspects are left outside the scope of attention. In order to define interdisciplinarity, it is important first to look at what it draws upon: the disciplines. According to Repko (2012, p. 4): '[A]cademic disciplines are scholarly communities that specify which phenomena to study, advance certain central concepts and organizing theories, embrace certain methods of investigation, provide forums for sharing research and insights, and offer career paths for scholars. […] Each discipline has its own defining elements – phenomena, assumptions, epistemology, concepts, theories and methods – that distinguish it from other disciplines'.

Petts et al. (2008) suggest that 'disciplines are constructs borne out of historical processes involving both objects and methods of study'. Disciplines produce criteria of scientific practice, shape careers, and are 'deeply structured' (p. 596). Buanes and Jentoft (2009) stress the importance of disciplines in identity formation: 'Disciplines provide members with access to a knowledge base, but also with a personal and professional identity embedded in an ‘‘epistemic community’’' (p. 449). Miller and Boix Mansilla (2004, p. 5) believe that 'a discipline has both an epistemic dimension and a social dimension'. Judging from these definitions, the nature of disciplines is twofold. On the one hand, they are 'communities' which determine the rules of the game, and are inseparable from people who practice them. On the other hand, each discipline represents a scientific package of cognitive attributes which define it. This dual character of disciplines dictates the duality of interdisciplinarity too: throughout our discussion of IDR we will see it both as a social and a cognitive process (e.g. Rossini and Porter, 1979 – even though the distinction between social and cognitive aspects is diluted). According to Lattuca (2001), definitions of interdisciplinary work started appearing in the 1930s, developed by philosophers and sociologists of science. Interdisciplinarity can be viewed as a process, a concept, a way of thinking, a methodology, a philosophy or even an ideology (Klein, 1990). According to Huutoniemi et al. (2010), IDR should be seen as a whole range of ways to integrate insights from different disciplines. Miller (1982) defines interdisciplinarity as 'the generic all-encompassing concept and includes 4

all activities which juxtapose, apply, combine, synthesise, integrate or transcend parts of two or more disciplines' (p. 6). Aboelela et al. (2006) put forward the following definition of IDR (p. 341): Interdisciplinary research is any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. The research is based upon a conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those disciplines, uses study design and methodology that is not limited to any one field, and requires the use of perspectives and skills of the involved disciplines throughout multiple phases of the research process.

This definition focuses on centrality of pluralism at all stages of research; however, it is not clear how one is to understand whether or not a study design and methodology of a research project is 'limited to any one field', because in practice research designs and methodologies are often borrowed and contested between disciplines. The current paper focuses on a more specific meaning of IDR, the one which defines it as a 'synthetic attempt of mutual interaction', a meaning that has recently 'been the most influential' (Huutoniemi et al, 2010, p. 80). For this purpose, the definition from Repko (2012) is adopted as one of the newest and most comprehensive definitions of IDR, processing and incorporating a number of definitions put forward by previous researchers: 'Interdisciplinary studies is a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single discipline, and draws on the disciplines with the goal of integrating their insights to construct a more comprehensive understanding' (Repko, 2012, p. 16)1.

It seems important to underline the following three aspects of this definition:  interdisciplinarity stems from the necessity to solve complex problems unsolvable by separate disciplines2;  it is grounded in the original disciplines and obtains resources and insights from them;  its goal is to integrate such insights into a qualitatively new whole. In the current paper, we will focus primarily on the third aspect: integration of interdisciplinary insights, and out of necessity we will have to often return to the second one: the fact that at the foundation of IDR lie the elements of disciplines whose insights are being integrated, and therefore one must be attentive to what these elements are and how they interact. There are other ways of perceiving integration; apart from insights, IDR can integrate 'information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories' (The National Academies, 2004, p. 2). We will come back to the concept of integration in section 3.1 and analyse its different levels and possibilities.

1. Here, the terms 'interdisciplinarity', IDR and 'interdisciplinary studies' are used interchangeably.

Although they have certain differences, we do not consider such differences critical for the purpose of this study. Interdisciplinarity, apart from research processes, is also concerned with education and administration of academic institutes, but this is not a focus of the present study. 2. It does not mean that complex systems cannot be studied by a single discipline. Example: ecology.

5

2.2. Some insights into the history of interdisciplinarity Since the formation of scientific method as a method of enquiry, its history has shown simultaneous tendencies towards unification of science and its division. Although Klein (1990) refers to Plato and Aristotle as interdisciplinary thinkers, Repko (2012) states that it was Aristotle who essentially started the tradition of drawing borders between different areas of knowledge. At the time, the hierarchy of disciplines was already being forged; theology, mathematics and physics occupied the highest level (as theoretical fields), ethics and politics dwelt in the middle (as practical disciplines), and humanities and engineering resided at the lowest level (productive subjects). Philosophy crowned the hierarchy as 'the universal field of inquiry' (ibid, p. 45). The establishment of European universities in the 12th century preserved this division and carried it into the nineteenth century. During the scientific revolutions of the Enlightenment specialisation deepened and accelerated, and the idea of the unity of science was not in fashion. The 19th century saw professionalisation of knowledge and the creation of scientific communities whose members became gate-keepers of disciplines, providing professional training and thus obtaining legitimacy and status from society and the nation states (Repko, 2012). In the natural sciences, specialisation continued unhindered until the middle of the twentieth century, although interdisciplinary cooperation was not unheard of (Klein, 1990). As concerns social sciences, in the 20th century two interdisciplinary waves can be distinguished. The first wave took place after the First World War, characterised by the call for 'general education' reform which intended to overcome the problems associated with highly specialised education. SSRC (Social Science Research Council) in the United States 'was established to promote integration across disciplines' (Lattuca, 2001, p.8). The social scientists at Chicago University were known for their integrative effort at the time. The establishment of the Vienna Circle in the 1920s with the view to arrive at a common understanding of scientific method, adopting common methodologies and terms was presumably also conductive to interdisciplinarity, because it potentially helped to establish a common ground between disciplines. Led by Schlick, an epistemologist and philosopher of science, the group initiated a series of congresses and published a number of works which helped establish a tradition of reflection on sciences, a meta-theory of analysis (Encyclopaedia Britannica: Academic Edition; Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy). However, the interdisciplinary efforts of the first wave were limited in two ways. Internally, they were mainly concerned with instrumental integration, borrowing of methods between disciplines, rather than creating new integrated theories or understandings. Moreover, the general momentum of continuous splitting of disciplines continued. Externally, the development of new integrative frameworks in the academia was hindered by the Depression (Klein, 1990). The second wave of interdisciplinarity in social sciences after the Second World War was marked by the ambition of conceptual integration. Chicago University was joined by Harvard and Columbia in the strive for general education. Interdisciplinarity, both in natural and social sciences, was fed by the development of new ideas, theories and 6

directions of thought such as general systems theory, semiotics, Marxism, feminist theory, structuralism and post-structuralism, emergence of new fields such as area studies, analogies drawn between mechanisms and living organisms, as well as advancement of inter-disciplines such as geochemistry (Klein, 1990). The advancement of interdisciplinarity in the 1960s was connected with the major changes which Western universities underwent at the time, including educational reforms, attempts at adoption of a holistic worldview in academia, the call for academia to serve societal needs, Foucauldian analysis of power in science – all these were instrumental in diluting the canons and borders of traditional science (Klein, 1990; Repko, 2012). Universities developed interdisciplinary curricula; University of Wisconsin - Green Bay 'offered an interdisciplinary curriculum focused on the relationships between humans and their environment' (Lattuca, 2001, p. 9). In the 1970s interdisciplinary studies managed to establish themselves as a scientific field, largely owing to the initiatives of the first prominent analysts of interdisciplinarity: Newell and Klein. Until this point, IDR was understood as collaborative enquiry into a problem of two or more disciplines, without any reference to the role of synthesis or integration. Finally, in 1979 Association for Integrative Studies was established, and the publication of Issues of Integrative Studies started in 1982, providing foundation for the study and documentation of IDR processes (Repko, 2012). Today, we observe a great surge in interest for such documentation. According to Buanes and Jentoft (2009),'the growth curve of interdisciplinary research is expected to be exponential, supported by heavy societal trends, such as globalisation, climate change, environmental degradation etc.' (p. 453). Does this mean that we are witnessing a new wave of interdisciplinarity? Will it become a 'new order of science', or its new paradigm? Let us turn to what literature has to say about the structural role of IDR in science. 2.3. IDR: a controversial enterprise or a new mode of knowledge creation? There is ample critique of interdisciplinarity as a means of enquiry and generation of scientific knowledge. McNeill (1999) called it a 'controversial issue' (p. 313). Nissani (1997), in an article overtly apologetic of IDR, admits that it may suffer from a certain extent of dilettantism as a sacrifice to the 'bird's eye view'. An interdisciplinarian may become 'jack of all trades, master of none' (p. 212). Buanes and Jentoft (2009) note that IDR has been criticised as 'lacking in substance' (p. 446). Maasen (2000) confirms that IDR analysis risks being shallow, due to the inherent need of a common denominator between disciplines. A number of authors commented on the inherent difficulties that await those embarking on an interdisciplinary road. Nissani (1997) predicts that it will be a tall order for them to navigate different ways of thinking; Buanes and Jentoft (2009) also mention practical difficulties of IDR. Maasen (2000) expresses concern that scientists from different disciplines will be stuck for hours arguing over collectively produced text. Another feature of IDR which makes it unattractive is that researchers face frustrations over the lack of recognition of their work. Nissani (1997) laments that the existing academic structures reward disciplinary research and punish interdisciplinarity in a 7

number of different ways. According to the National Academies (2004), academic reward systems provide credit (in terms of positions, space allocation, salary etc.) for departmental activities, and not for classes or research outside the departmental area of expertise. And yet, there seems to be unanimity among many researchers of IDR suggesting that it has moved far from the periphery of knowledge to represent a new chapter in the history of science. Below are some examples of words, concepts and discourses used by various authors to describe IDR in the context of science:  a critique of disciplinary limitation (Klein, 1990);  a critique of social and political structures supporting disciplinary divisions (Klein, 1990);  an indicator of a 'radical questioning of the nature of knowledge' (Repko, 2012, p. 21);  a characteristic of a new irreversible mode of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994);  'an emerging paradigm of knowledge formation' (Repko, 2012, p. xxii). A number of authors see interdisciplinarity not in a normative way, as something that should be encouraged, but as a phenomenon that is naturally gaining prominence in science. For example, Tainter (2006) suggests that science progresses by solving simple problems first, and leaving more complex ones for later stages, so that even though disciplines are very efficient ways of knowledge production, science inevitably faces a stage where it cannot solve new problems by employing one discipline at a time. Gibbons et al. (1994) urge that the new mode of knowledge production, reflexive and transdisciplinary3, is irreversible and manifests at the cutting edge of science, in its most progressive cases. In a way, we can imagine that the search for interdisciplinarity permeates science from its creation until today. In the words of Gibbons et al. (1994): 'The yearning for inter- or transdisciplinarity… is rooted in the nostalgia for an epoch when the 'unification of science' still appeared to be possible. In some fields, like physics, the 'dream of a final theory' is still very much alive. Such dreams reveal an understandable nostalgia for a pattern of knowledge production which is the exact opposite of what seemingly prevails today; the relentless increase in further specialisation of scientific knowledge and its diversification into ever more narrow areas' (p. 28).

There seems to be a certain paradox in the active endorsement of interdisciplinarity, because, after all, IDR builds on the expertise of the disciplines (Gloria Gallardo, personal communication, 7 November 2012). It can be suggested that the development of disciplines during the normal (paradigmatic, according to Kuhn) phases in the evolution of science is the single most important condition for interdisciplinarity. IDR is by nature both a process of deep exploration by disciplines and integration throughout a group process. Perhaps, this is the key to answer the critique of IDR as a 'shallow' process; IDR does not forego the depth of disciplinary knowledge, but instead integrates it and gives it a new meaning.

3 The distinction between multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity is drawn in Section 3.1.

8

All in all, it seems that most authors believe that IDR as a mode of science is here to stay, that it is a natural development and will continue. Weingart and Stehr (2000), for example, view the 21st century science as postdisciplinary, challenging the past order of knowledge and creating a new one. All these perspectives of IDR are concerned with a specific question: how does IDR function in the context of science, and are presented from the position of the philosophy and history of science. However, in order to understand the nature of IDR, we must look at it from other angles. 2.4. Theoretical foundations of IDR Perhaps the main feature of interdisciplinarity is its dual nature as a cognitive and a social process. This distinction is drawn, among others, by Rossini and Porter (1997), Klein (2008), and Wagner et al. (2010). At the same time, it can be argued that this distinction is problematic, because some scientists see cognition as a social process (Gloria Gallardo, personal communication, 7 November). For example, Lave (1991) suggests that cognition is socially shared, and that we process information in connection with our relationships to the social world. O'Donnell et al. (1997, p. 7) stress that 'social and cognitive processes in group interaction are very tightly interwoven'. However, for analytical purposes we can broadly divide the various theories into two large groups: the ones that deal with the social side of IDR and the ones explaining the cognitive one (with a partial overlap between the two). There is also a third, relatively new branch of theories that focus on IDR as a team process, combining a large variety of approaches (the science of team science).

The theories described in the current section are presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Theories used to describe IDR The figure shows examples of theories that can be useful in describing the nature of IDR, including theories of psychology, sociology and the science of team science.

9

2.4.1. Theories from psychology Bromme (2000) explores IDR through cognitive psychology, looking at the cognitive processes of a group, as well as at individual traits of researchers which are crucial for the success of IDR. He builds a theory of cognitive interdisciplinarity upon the theory of common ground developed by Clark (1996), which describes the processes of establishing a basis for comprehension, where every act of communication depends on the ability to arrive at a common denominator of understanding. The concept of common ground applies to 'the knowledge, beliefs and suppositions that each person has to establish with another person in order to interact with that person' (Clark, 1996, pp.12, 116). Common ground primarily deals with language as an instrument of communication. Bromme writes about the initial difficulties that researchers from different academic backgrounds encounter, and the necessity of establishing a common language. One important implication of Bromme's theory of cognitive interdisciplinarity is that researchers may discover that they use the same concept in a different way, or different concepts to denote the same meaning (Repko, 2012). Derry et al. (1997) resort to three branches of theories to describe collaborative cognition: situated cognition theories, groups as information processors, and distributed cognition theory. Situated cognition theories (Lave, 1991; Lave and Wenger, 1991) view teams as communities possessing certain practices (regulated by norms) and tools (including technologies and language), functioning within cultural contexts, which define their practices and tools at a higher level. An important aspect of IDR, according to this theory, is negotiation, which starts from defining the shared concepts and helps to align the participants' languages. Negotiation is relatively easy at the initial stages, where concepts and metaphors are identified as common, but becomes more and more difficult, as details of those concepts and metaphors show that the practices in which they are used differ significantly across disciplines, and, moreover, the meanings of concepts and metaphors might change in the specific context of the problem that the interdisciplinary group is exploring. Furthermore, negotiation might lead to some perspectives acquiring higher status than others ('cognitive apprenticeship' of lowerstatus disciplines by higher-status ones), which, according to DuRussel and Derry (1996), is incompatible with interdisciplinary work. Interestingly, the suggestion that IDR is a result of negotiation is not as straightforward as it seems. According to Alexander and Giesen (1987), ongoing discussions in social sciences concern 'whether social order was negotiated between individuals or imposed by collective, or emergent, forces' (p. 4). This suggestion is interesting because it draws a distinction between negotiation and social emergence, claiming that they are incompatible. However, can emergence itself be regarded as a process of negotiation? How can we know for sure that the emergent qualities of social systems that exist on the level of society do not form through non-linear processes of negotiation between individuals? After all, the V-shape of a bird flock, which is given as an example of emergence in a natural system by Sawyer (2005), is a result of such 'negotiation', or coordination between individual birds. In any case, negotiation is highlighted by a number of authors as a central aspect of IDR (Petts et al, 2008; Buanes and Jentoft, 2009; Klein, 2008). 10

The theory viewing groups as information processors (Hinsz, Tindale and Vollrath, 1997; Derry et al., 1997) applies the understanding of individual cognitive processes to a group. The theory explores how the long-term individual knowledge is shared and modified within a group, with the participation of long-term and working memory between which information is transferred; collective intelligence models (a variant of information processing theories; Smith, 1994, cited in O'Donnel et al., 1997) allow to structure types of knowledge a group acquires. Again, as with situated cognition theory, status of disciplines might affect the process of such sharing and modification, silencing certain types of knowledge or subordinating them to dominant forms. Distributed cognition theory (Salomon, 1993; Hollan, Hutchins, & Kirsh, 2000) extends information processing theory by drawing more specific parallels between the elements of individual and group information processing, such as long-term and working memory. Long-term memory of a group is conceived as the information distributed among its individuals, some of which is shared by the group, whereas some remains private. The theory allows to observe the development of the group in time, where its knowledge and skills change as a result of continuous interactions of its members, and the exchange becomes more organised. During interactions among individuals an analogue of a working memory is activated, representing the thoughts and ideas that individuals have at the time of interaction. If such ideas are shared, they become part of a collective working memory, with the potential to modify its long-term distributed memory (Salomon, 1993; Salomon, 1996, cited in Derry et al., 1997). Distributed cognition models accommodate both sociocultural and information processing elements, and, according to O'Donnell et al. (1997), may be most suited to analyse the processes of IDR. According to distributed cognition theory, mental processes are 'an emergent product representing the work of many different cognitive components (objects, people, etc.) that send information back and forth to one another but that otherwise operate as relatively independent cognitive entities... Although the capacity of individual components operating alone is limited, when information processing components operate together, highly intelligent behaviour emerges' (p. 25). Distributed cognition theories imply that the process of cognition is executed by the whole group, and that knowledge creation can be attributed to the group as a whole. The examples of the cognitive theories described above give a general idea of how interdisciplinarity looks through the prism of cognitive psychology. Let us look at another prism, that of sociology, in describing IDR. 2.4.2. Theories from sociology First of all, it is problematic for sociology to apply psychological concepts to the behaviour of a social group. According to Alexander and Giesen (1987), there have been attempts to create a universal language and understanding of human behaviour by translating sociological concepts into psychological ones; however, sociologists view this as reductionism, and as encroachment upon sociology's subject matter. For example, Gallardo (Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, personal communication, 7 November 2012) is critical of the integration of resilience theory into everyday discourse on human interaction with nature. Her main objection is that such application of systems theory results in an individualistic fallacy, where 11

behaviour of a group is deduced on the basis of individual behaviour (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996). According to Weingart and Stehr (2000), scientific disciplines are a reflection of the social system of knowledge – and society in general. This idea is confirmed by an abundance of theories which describe interdisciplinarity as a social and political process. Lingard et al. (2007) integrate three sociological theories in their analysis of IDR: knowledge brokerage (Wenger, 1998); cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1990) and structuration theory (Giddens, 1993). Their article is titled 'Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team', and it analyses the negotiating processes involved in IDR and how they are influenced by the underlying political structures of their disciplines and institutions. The three theories allow the authors:  to show how they act as knowledge brokers, crossing boundaries between disciplines and aligning their diverse languages, creating a common unified knowledge;  analyse the way in which they negotiate on the basis of diverse value systems, as well as the amount of cultural and symbolic capital possessed by each individual as a result of her belonging to a particular discipline, and the way in which they agree on the meaning and value of their work;  finally, reflect on the structure and agency of IDR: how the underlying structures influence the process and are in turn recreated or transformed by the group processes. The authors conclude that it is important to 'explicitly negotiate' identity in an interdisciplinary team, and that the process of writing the project reports is complicated by the political decisions which have to do with the differences in writing practices and different understandings of academic value. The political aspect of negotiation is also highlighted by Gallardo (personal communication, 7 November 2012), who suggests that negotiation in a process of social interaction is a process of power struggle. The theory of pluralistic dialoguing, developed by McCallin (2004), suggests that the researchers in an interdisciplinary team engage in constant discussions, communications, debates, questioning, exploration, and these communication processes are at the core of their teamwork. Such dialoguing is made possible by the readiness of team members to challenge their own ways of thinking and be open to new scientific perspectives. Pluralism implies that they are ready to embrace such perspectives in order to develop an understanding of the problem at hand. The process of pluralistic dialoguing involves 'changing thinking', 'deconstruction and resynthesis' (p. 29). Overall, a number of authors share concern over the power structures which have a deep bearing on IDR. Birmbaum and Gillespie (1980) provide a study of interdisciplinary collaboration on the basis of status concordance theory, according to which there exists a hierarchy of status among researchers according to their professional level in academia (position at a university), their role in the project (principal investigator), and the perception of their disciplines' prestige. Concordance occurs when the external hierarchies are reflect in the internal hierarchies of the group; however, this is valid at the pre-proposal stages of research and less so when research has progressed, because then the actual contributions of individuals to collective work play a greater role than initial perceptions of status. 12

Campbell (2005) supports the view of the importance of power relationships in an interdisciplinary research group, judging from her experience that social scientists are sometimes invited to a project as an afterthought, or to fulfil funding criteria. Murphy (2011) eloquently suggests that 'the cultural maps of science locate and situate science as a place replete with power and politics (p. 494), whereas Miller and Boix Mansilla (2004) trace the power issue to the nature of disciplines, which, according to them, represent 'an exercise of coercive power and a way of enforcing social and institutional conditions that benefit some groups and perspectives over others' (p. 5) Another distinct discourse that can be clearly seen in the literature is the one describing IDR as a meeting of cultures. For example, Derry et al. (1997) refer to disciplines as cultures. The National Academies (2004) normatively prescribe members of interdisciplinary teams to 'immerse themselves in the languages, cultures and knowledge of their collaborators' (p. 24), predict that 'without special effort by researchers to learn the languages and cultures of participants in different traditions, the potential interdisciplinary research might not be realized and might have no lasting effect' (p. 21), and lament that 'on occasion, a culture gap between participating fields is not bridged' (p. 53). An important quality of IDR, also connected with viewing disciplines as cultures, has to do with the idea of Latour (1987) that science exists only as a practice, and Bourdieu (1990), who stresses the customary characteristic of research, which is acquired by example and exists in the form of habitus. It is only to be expected that when the whole range of such 'practices' come together, their previously invisible sides will suddenly become apparent and perhaps conflicting. According to O'Donnel et al. (1997), the enquiry into the processes of IDR can benefit enormously from sociology when it comes to analysis of power, status, prestige, ability to take final decisions. Sociology has studied the complex effect that identity of group members shapes group processes and is shaped by them, how it influences expectations of individuals and instructs them to act accordingly, or how the group processes may allow individuals to develop new identities. When it comes to status, O'Donnell et al. describe it 'expected competency for the performance of the task at hand' (p. 8). 2.4.3. The science of team science Another field that explores interdisciplinarity is the science of team science. This emerging field combines insights from cognitive and social psychology, management, and organisational science (Fiore, 2008; Garland et al. 2006; Stockols, Hall et al., 2008). The science of team science also draws from 'sociology, ecology, physics, and applied mathematics' (Hall et al, 2008, p. 7). Hall et al. (2008) provide some examples of models that have been used to categorise, describe and evaluate transdisciplinary team science: the social–ecologic model (Stokols et al., 2005, cited in Hall et al., 2008); systems thinking and complexity theory (Shen, 2008, cited ibid.); network analysis (Nash, 2008, cited ibid.); a social-determinants paradigm (Morgan et al., 2003, cited ibid.); and the heterarchical analytic framework (National Cancer Institute, 2006, cited ibid.). Hall et al. (2008) justify the necessity of the science of team science by the fact that instances of team research are becoming more and more frequent, and the interest for understanding and evaluating team science is on the rise. Börner et al. (2010) and 13

Stokols, Misra et al. (2008) acknowledge the complexity of the problems faced by society and the resulting need for team science. Mâsse et al. (2008) stress that such tendency to teamwork includes collaborations between researchers from different disciplinary fields. The role of the science of team science, as seen by Hall et al. (2008), is in discovering factors of success or failure of team research projects. Börner et al. (2010) describe science of team science as an 'emerging area of research centred on examination of the processes SciTS is an emerging area of research centered on examination of the processes by which scientific teams organize, communicate, and conduct research' (p. 4), and also stress the importance of understanding what makes or breaks research collaborations. Mâsse et al. (2008) also mention the early stage of the development of science of team science. According to Stokols, Misra et al. (2008), the investment in team science, its labour-intensiveness, high risk of conflicts, requirements of long prparation and practice - all demand evidence of the effectiveness of team science compared with individual research projects. Börner et al. (2010) differentiate between three levels of the science of team science. Macro-level focuses on general patterns, including statistical analysis of types and numbers of collaborations, and concerns organisational change. Meso-level is interested in teams as such, their composition, group dynamics, interactions, communication processes within them, and often uses actor network approaches. Micro-level is dedicated to individuals, their skills and competencies, and personal role in team communication and conflict resolution. Each of the level addresses the 'when', 'where', 'what' and 'who' aspects of team science. The current study does not intend to present a full picture of what the science of team science (or any other field) does; however, one example can be presented, such as Stokols, Misra et al. (2008), who explore: 'the ecology of team science, or the complex web of intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, institutional, physical environmental, technologic (e.g., cyber), and other political and societal factors that influence the effectiveness of transdisciplinary collaboration in research, training, clinical, and public-policy settings. This ecologic analysis suggests a typology of contextual circumstances that jointly determine the effectiveness of transdisciplinary science and training' (p. S97).

The study draws upon social psychology and management (analysing such factors as social cohesiveness, team size, environmental conditions, leadership, participatory processes of goal setting, etc.); studies of information infrastructures (including technological, socio-cognitive and emotional factors in remote collaboration, among others); community coalitions of researchers (analysing leadership, common goal identification, distribution of power and control, prior experiences of collaboration, etc.); and studies of transdisciplinary training programmes and research centres (addressing collaboration readiness, tendencies towards conflict, levels of preparation and practice). This example shows the scope and range of factors that the science of team science considers, and the research fields it borrows expertise from. Leadership has been highlighted as one of the most important factors in group performance, including its cognitive functionality. O'Donnell et al. (1997) note that a leader is there to help the group develop structure and sense of direction, but at the same time giving individuals enough autonomy to exercise creativity. 14

2.4.4. Science and technology studies As the current study concerns the practice of science, it is important to refer to a branch of thought which takes on such an approach to science – as a practice of knowledge production – called science and technology studies (Goldman, Nadasdy and Turner, 2011), or science, technology and society (Law, 2004). Science and technology studies (STS) is tightly related to sociology of scientific knowledge (as presented in Pickering, 1992), history and philosophy of science (according to Goldman, Nadasdy and Turner, 2011), science-policy studies (as in Forsyth, 2003, cited in Goldman, Nadasdy and Turner, 2011), and feminist science studies (e.g. Haraway, 1991, cited ibid.), and analyses production and distribution of scientific knowledge. STS concerns itself with messy practices of knowledge production, the role of power structures in scientific endeavour, with embeddedness of this endeavour in political and cultural contexts, and with the ways in which science and society shape each other (Goldman, Nadasdy and Turner, 2011). STS can be regarded as a critique of a more 'common' view of science as objective, ordered, and neutral. Such claims of STS as that science carries social and political agendas, or produces objects and realities which it claims only to describe and explain, may 'run counter … to many versions of the received philosophical wisdom', and open an 'unfamiliar and sometimes anxiety-provoking territory' (Law, 2004, p. 12). Sociology of scientific knowledge, according to Pickering (1992), implies a radical political message about science. An example of work from STS that can be relevant to the study of interdisciplinarity is that by Star and Griesemer (1989). They write about a tension 'in science between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalisable findings' (p. 387), or the necessity for coherent results of heterogeneous findings. The subjects involved in production of scientific knowledge 'translate, negotiate, debate, triangulate and simplify in order to work together (p. 389)'. The authors propagate an 'ecological' point of view, which does not allow for any perspective to take 'epistemological primacy' over other perspectives. They introduce standardisation of methods and creation of boundary objects as factors of success in scientific collaboration. An example of boundary objects is species of animals and birds as an object of interest to different 'worlds': scientists, general public, government officials, etc. These objects serve to translate and convey meanings across the borders of different realms. The authors also suggest a number of strategies of dealing with conflicting viewpoints presented by various 'worlds', for example finding a 'lowest common denominator', simplifying an object of enquiry to the extent where some of the properties can be ignored, or conducting enquiry in parallel or autonomously. This work is but one example of STS research, and it can be clearly seen that a lot of ideas within it can be useful for the analysis of IDR processes: translation, negotiation, search for a common denominator, ignoring difficult questions, the need for a balanced point of view which does not favour one perspective over another – to name but a few. The current study does not draw heavily from STS for two reasons. Firstly, some of the sociological theories described above deal with some of the aspects of STS: power, practices, social aspects of research process. Secondly, because neither the messiness, nor connections with political agendas (such as sustainable development, as mentioned 15

earlier) of the research project under study are the focus of the current work. STS would allow to 'radicalise' the insights of the current study, and take it to a new interesting direction; however, within the scope of the study it will not be done; acknowledging the importance of STS to the study of IDR processes is perhaps enough at this point.

2.5. The nature and basis of IDR (conclusions) So far, we have learnt that IDR has a dual nature as a cognitive and a social process, whose main aim is derived from the necessity to solve increasingly more complex scientific and societal problems. IDR has its foundations in the disciplines which it brings together, and relies on the integration of the insights from these disciplines – the concept which we will analyse in the next chapter. Disciplines are seen as communities and paradigms, and their social and epistemic dimensions define the nature of IDR. We have seen that IDR plays a particular role in today's science. On the one hand, it appears as a critique to the current mode of highly specialised scientific practice, both epistemologically and as a challenge to its power structures. At the same time, interdisciplinary investigations may constitute a new paradigm of knowledge creation, with its own epistemology and methodology; this development of a new paradigm is seen by some authors as irreversible and a natural order of evolution of science. The theories discussed in this section do not in any way constitute an exhaustive representation of approaches to interdisciplinarity; they only serve to show the main directions of thought that were possible to identify during the literature review. Certainly, there are many more theoretical frameworks for analysing IDR; however, for the purpose of this paper (the study of IDR as a group process) we will stop here. Certain conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the reviewed theories. 1) The reviewed theories from cognitive psychology underline:  the importance of common ground and common language;  close attention to concepts and what they might hide;  the centrality of negotiation, during which some perspectives may overrule others;  the influence of status in the creation of shared knowledge;  emergent properties of knowledge that is created by overcoming individual limitations, through operation of a 'collective mind'. 2) The reviewed theories from sociology emphasise:  knowledge brokerage across disciplines in creating a common knowledge;  distribution of cultural and symbolic capital;  the workings of structure and agency;  negotiation of identity, political decisions and writing practices;  deconstruction and resynthesis of disciplinary thinking;  status, power and culture as important components of IDR. Finally, the science of team science offers a range of concepts, such as leadership, communication, trust, and other aspects of teamwork, distribution of power and control, technological and environmental factors, organisational context and readiness to 16

collaborate as useful guidelines to analyse the factors of success and failures of interdisciplinary enterprise. One insight that is derived directly from the process of analysing interdisciplinarity is that this process is in itself interdisciplinary. It is extremely problematic to categorise and systematise the different theories that try to explain IDR, and some authors (such as Wenger) have written in both cognitive and social branches. It is instructive to try to overcome the linearity and reductionism involved in such analysis, and the difficulty to do so gives a researcher an idea about the difficulties encountered in the practice of IDR proper.

17

3. Interdisciplinary integration: strategy, emergence and emergent strategies In the previous chapter we defined IDR, looked into its nature and identified the role it plays in the context of modern science. In the current chapter, we will define our main focus of study: the process of interdisciplinary integration. We will seek to understand what integration means and what it looks like; moreover, we will review what the literature advises researchers concerning existing strategies for achieving integration, and what role emergence plays in this process. 3.1. Definition of integration According to Repko (2012), IDR consists of two parts: drawing on disciplinary insights and integrating such insights. It is on the integration phase of IDR that this paper is focused. According to Klein (1990), integration is the part of the IDR process which has been least understood. There are questions which naturally arise about integration: What does it mean, to integrate? What is being integrated? And what is the result of such integration? Repko (2012, p. 263) defines interdisciplinary integration as 'the cognitive process of critically evaluating disciplinary insights and creating common ground among them to construct a more comprehensive understanding'. The understanding is the product or result of the integrative process. A largely used synonym of integration is synthesis (Newell, 2011). In Repko's terminology, insights are 'scholarly understandings of a specific problem produced by disciplinary authors [which] typically reflect their disciplinary perspective' (p. 234). Perspective, in the definition of Miller and Boix Mansilla (2004, p. 4), is 'a way of seeing and thinking that is based on commitment to a system of theories, a body of professional knowledge, a discipline, or a discourse community... seeing the world through the lens of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices of a shared, often ''expert'', way of knowing'.

The result of the integration is 'the creative formation of something new and greater than (and different from) the sum of its parts' (Repko, 2012, p. 263). Epistemological differences of various disciplines are reconciled, their knowledge is transcended, and the knew knowledge 'cannot be reduced to the separate disciplinary insights from which it emerged' (Newell, 1990, p. 74). The result of the integration is more comprehensive (it consists of more elements than an understanding produced by a separate discipline); it is new (it is unlikely that one discipline could produce it); and whole (it can be seen from the various disciplinary perspectives, but neither of them is dominating) (Repko, 2012). Integration, according to Fiore (2008), is at the heart of interdisciplinary work and is what distinguishes it from multidisciplinarity. In a multidisciplinary collaboration, disciplines achieve a common goal, but they do so in the form of complementary analysis. Interdisciplinarity goes beyond mere complementarity and suggests a 18

principally new understanding. Klein (1990) stresses that the new entity that emerges as a result of the highest level of interdisciplinary work is new, intellectually coherent and whole. Rossini and Porter (1984, cited in Lattuca, 2001, p.11) compare results of interdisciplinary research to 'a seamless woven garment' as opposed to 'the patchwork quilt of multidisciplinary work'. According to Szostak (2002), integration implies that a combination of theories and methods produces a stronger explanation of the problem in question than the one produced by such theories and methods in isolation. Drawing distinction between multi- and interdisciplinarity, it might as well be useful to draw a distinction between inter- and transdisciplinary. Sometimes the words 'interdisciplinary' and 'transdisciplinary' are used interchangeably, as noted by Hall et al. (2008). However, certain authors find it important to draw a distinction. For instance, Böner et al. (2010) define interdisciplinary efforts as those combining knowledge from scientific fields in a synergetic way, whereas transdisciplinary approaches create holistic understandings through crossing boundaries between disciplines. According to Mâsse et al. (2008), transdisciplinary collaboration allow to 'transcend the individual disciplinary perspectives represented by various members of the research team' (p. S152). Stokols, Misra et al. (2008) see interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research as two points along a continuum of types of research, from the least-integrative to the mostintegrative. In the current study, inter- and trans- will be used referring to such a continuum, but otherwise the differences between them will be regarded as unimportant for purposes of the study. Newell (2001) strongly believes that IDR is a way of studying complex systems; the object of study in IDR must always be multi-faceted, and the different facets must be coherent. He states quite categorically that the study of a complex system is the only justification of the use of IDR; if the object in question is not a complex system, IDR should not be used and disciplinary or multidisciplinary enquiry should suffice. Therefore, he concludes that the need for integration is a result of IDR concerning itself with complex systems, and that complexity is at the heart of the nature of IDR. In Newell's understanding, a complex system is the one characterised by non-linear relationships. As an example, he describes a large city, where: 'The decisions of the school board about the location of a new school can have unanticipated effects on the ethnic distribution of neighborhoods and thus on voting patterns of wards or traffic patterns, which in turn affect highway maintenance; the resulting political shifts and changing decisions about new highway construction can have unanticipated consequences for watersheds and water quality; and so on. Taken together, the subsystems and their nonlinear connections form a complex system' (Newell, 2001, p. 8-9).

Berkes et al. (2003) define a complex system as the one characterised by non-linearity, uncertainty, scale (consists of sub-systems), self-organisation, and emergence. One of the most intriguing aspects of integration is that its results are difficult to judge. One reason for this is that they are not subject to evaluation according to the discipline's criteria. Boix Mansilla and Gardner (2003) predict that such evaluation might seriously underestimate and misunderstand interdisciplinary work. Moreover, often there are additional demands for IDR results which come from the society, and that is applicability in the practical context (Klein, 1990).

19

However, it can be argued that the results of integration have to be held up against the general criteria of science – even though that might not be enough, if we assume that interdisciplinary knowledge is qualitatively different from disciplinary. Boix Mansilla and Gardner (2003, p. 5) suggest the following criteria of interdisciplinary knowledge:  consistency with the disciplinary knowledge and quality criteria of the disciplines involved;  balance in integration of disciplinary perspectives;  'effectiveness in advancing understanding', or achievement of researchers' goals. The balance of IDR implies that although different perspectives may not have an equal representation. Apparently, the authors imply that a certain level of intuition and judgement is required from the researchers to define a 'sensible' balance. It has to be noted here that these views of integration constitute a kind of ideal. Given the insights that various theories from sociology, psychology, science of team science, and science and technology studies offer concerning IDR, it may be argued that achievement of such an ideal may be problematic. The type and scope of integration varies in each particular case. Klein (2008) distinguishes between horizontal integration, where insights from disciplines with similar epistemologies meet, and vertical integration, combining insights from disciplines with very different epistemologies. The case studied in the empirical part of this thesis is an example of the latter type, involving collaboration of researchers from natural and social sciences. It can be expected that this circumstance will present a chance to look at what happens when diverging epistemologies meet. Huutoniemi et al. (2010) classify IDR into empirical (integrating data collected in different fields); methodological (employing methods developed in different disciplines), and theoretical (integrating theories developed in different disciplines). On the basis of the literature review presented above, the following criteria for recognising integration can be suggested:             

'Have all disciplinary insights been critically evaluated?' 'Has common ground between concepts and theories been created?' 'Has a more comprehensive understanding been constructed?' 'Is the resulting understanding new (did not exist before)?' 'Have conflicts between insights, theories and their sources been reconciled?' 'Is it intellectually coherent/stable?' 'Can it be evaluated according to criteria of a single discipline?' 'Is it more than the sum of insights?' 'Can it be reduced to the comprising insights?' 'Did this understanding occur as a result of a group process?' 'Does the group collectively own the intellectual property over the result?' 'Is this understanding important for science or society?' 'Can this understanding be communicated/tested?'

The case study introduced in Chapter 4 will attempt at assessing whether the results of a concrete IDR project meet these criteria of integration. However, it has to be admitted 20

that not all of these criteria will be subject to operationalisation and/or evaluation. For example, it is unlikely that it will be possible to find out whether all disciplinary insights have been critically evaluated. Each thought that flashes through a researcher's mind is potentially an insight into the problem; it is not realistic to find out whether all such thoughts have been communicated and evaluated. Such questions as 'have conflicts between insights, theories and their sources been reconciled', on the other hand, is easier to address. It is important to remember that the generalist view of interdisciplinarity (suggesting that it is simply a dialogue between disciplines) rejects integration as its core. At the heart of such rejection is the belief that integration is simply unachievable, due to a number of reasons: disciplinary fragmentation, epistemological barriers, conflicting perspectives and ideologies, preference for theory competition and alternative integrations (letting the reader to choose among a number of perspectives) (Repko, 2012). Alternatively, it is suggested that integration can be partial, which means that not all insights have been integrated, and/or the new understanding that those insights create relates only to some parts of the problem or question (ibid). Finally, it is important to mention that integration does not necessarily imply resolving all conflicts (Repko, 2012). Tensions and conflicts are an important part of interdisciplinary work and, as we will see further, a considerable part of the integration strategy consists of integrating conflicting views. 3.2. Strategies of integration and the centrality of conflict in IDR According to Repko (2012), there is opposition to developing strict guidelines for IDR, on the grounds that such guidelines remove creativity and spontaneity from the process, and liken it to traditional disciplinary research, of which it is supposed to serve as a critique. For example, Mackey (2002) stresses that IDR is an intuitive process and should not be rule-based. The role of intuition is also highlighted by Welch (2007, p. 131), who observes a 'conflict between the need for rigour as opposed to openmindedness within interdisciplinary studies'. These ideas are consistent with the main proposition of Law (2004), who urges that the rule-like methods of social sciences are inadequate in dealing with 'messy' reality, and calls for looser and broader approaches to research. Repko believes that every group involved in IDR resort to some kind of a strategy to guide them. This opinion corresponds to that of Rossini and Porter (1979), who claim that 'any conscious attempt to perform IDR should involve a strategy for integration of disciplinary components' (p. 77). In line with that, Fiore (2008) suggests that IDR can be learned and improved, and therefore should have a systematic approach. Buanes and Jentoft (2009) are quite explicit about the need to develop IDR as a practice. They urge that IDR is not a deconstruction of disciplinary structures, but a phenomenon that requires a solid foundation in terms of methodology. 'The argument for interdisciplinarity will not be convincing unless it can be demonstrated that it works in practice', they claim (p. 453); 'The proof is in the pudding'. 21

Rossini and Porter (1979) propose four types of strategies that can be adopted by an interdisciplinary team: group learning (where the group collectively owns the process and results of research), modelling, negotiation among experts (where responsibilities are divided between researchers and then re-analysed and negotiated), and integration by a leader (largely editorial). Out of these four strategies group learning comes closest to the contemporary understanding of IDR as an integrative experience, while, for example, integration by a leader appears to be a multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary strategy. Cognitive strategies for integration include reasoning through analogies (applying theories from one discipline to the domain of another), elaborating compound concepts (terms that integrate the nature of phenomena as seen across disciplines), providing complex and multi-causal explanations (based on insights from a range of disciplines), advancing through 'checks and balances' (verifying and validating insights through other disciplines' theories and methods), and bridging the explanation-action gap (assigning explanatory and pragmatic roles to perspectives of different disciplines) (Miller and Boix Mansilla, 2004). Apart from the different types of integration strategies, one can envision certain steps that can be taken. For example, Szostak (2002) highlights the following components of integration strategy:  delineation of the insights resulting from various theories;  justification of their combined use (taken together they must provide a more comprehensive explanation of the problem than separately);  specification of applicability of all theories involved;  accurate specification of terms; comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each method involved;  adjustment of theories to provide a coherent analysis;  finally, possible modification of assumptions and addition or subtraction of phenomena from the analysis. Newell (2001, p.15) offers the following steps for integration of disciplinary insights:      

'identifying conflicts in insights by using disciplines to illuminate each other’s assumptions, or by looking for different terms with common meanings, or terms with different meanings; evaluating assumptions and terminology in the context of the specific problem; resolving conflicts by working towards a common vocabulary and set of assumptions; creating common ground; constructing a new understanding of the problem; producing a model (metaphor, theme) that captures the new understanding'.

This strategy is insightful in that it assumes the existence of conflicts between different elements, the necessity to establish a common ground, and the conscious process of constructing a more comprehensive understanding. Repko (2012) elaborates what kinds of conflicts between insights should be identified and potentially resolved. Such conflicts may result from conflicting concepts, assumptions, and theories. Let us examine more closely what these different types of conflicts imply. According to Repko (2012), a central part in the process of integration involves, somewhat paradoxically, identifying and studying conflicts between insights. It is 22

natural to discover conflicts when studying a complex problem, and without conflict there may not be a need in the process of integration. Similarly, Wagner et al. (2011) ascertain that integration 'entails negotiation of conflict and achievement of synthesis' (p. 16). The first source of conflicts between insights lies in differences in concepts. There may be a situation when the same concept is used in a different way by different disciplines, or when similar phenomena may be described by different concepts. Another source of conflicts is philosophical assumptions, which, in turn, can be ontological (concerning the researchers' beliefs about reality itself), epistemological (concerning the knowledge about reality and how it can be obtained), and value-laden (concerning the value of certain aspects of reality and knowledge) (Repko, 2012). Two points are important to remember about assumptions: first, they are usually implicit; second, they are instilled in researchers' minds through the process of education in their disciplinary domain (ibid.). According to Bourdieu (1990), implicit aspects often become explicit through interdisciplinary interaction. Finally, conflicts of insights can be generated by conflicting theories, both within disciplines and between disciplines, which may explain phenomena in different ways. Theories, in turn, can themselves be sources of concepts and assumptions (Repko, 2012). Campbell (2005) warns that bringing together social and natural scientists if fraught with conflict of perspectives, approaches, and understandings. She urges that the scientists' ways of thinking about a problem are so fundamental that they will remain unnoticed until a conflict arises. On the one hand, according to Campbell, such conflicts give an opportunity for growth and developing new, creative perspectives; on the other, they can considerably hinder IDR, especially if they arise at such inappropriate moments as finalising results or drafting final articles. Interestingly, Campbell notes, a large number of social scientists on the project might lead to more conflicts, because social scientists often hold principally different views and come from quite divergent scientific traditions. In line with this observation, Buanes and Jentoft (2009) warn that '[c]hanging epistemological and methodological rules requires reflexivity' (p. 453). Aboelela et al. (2007) report the results of a study which showed that representatives of sciences, both natural and social, adhered to 'a positivist or post-positivist mode of inquiry in which an appreciable reality exists and is objectively (although sometimes imperfectly) knowable... The humanities employed a critical theory or constructivist mode of inquiry in which reality is experientially based, historically shaped, and its understanding is only relative in nature' (p. 336). This signifies a potential epistemological gap between research cultures, which may or may not be bridged by a commitment to interdisciplinary integration. All in all, it appears that no matter what strategy or set of guidelines is adopted by researchers to integrate their insights, their success requires 'a strong degree of epistemological self-reflexivity' (Klein, 1996, p. 214), and 'the capacity to assume multiple cognitive and social identities' (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 149). The need for empathic capacity of researchers can be traced back to Max Weber the Verstehen 23

tradition in social sciences, which implies that scientists 'must gain an understanding of the other's view of reality, of his or her symbols, values and attitudes' (Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996, p.12). This statement concerns the understanding by researchers of their subjects of enquiry; however, in the light of the multi-perspective nature of IDR, it can be extrapolated to their understanding of their colleagues in the process of research. It can be argued that the ability to integrate insights across disciplines will depend on the amount of time and effort that a given research group will dedicate to discussion, sharing and exchange – the very processes which allow for the development of synergy among their individual knowledge (Mu and Gnyawali, 2003). It is especially important in IDR, because such exchange will allow to critically evaluate and integrate insights, and the space where integration is happening should ideally be free from the power structures of scientific knowledge – if such a space exists. 3.3. The concept of emergence in IDR According to the definition of integration, its main strength resides in its novelty and synergistic characteristics. Such characteristics do not allow to trace the new knowledge (the result of integration) back to separate disciplinary insights from which it emerged. If this is true, there must be another side to the process of IDR apart from its deliberate, strategic nature. From a discourse point of view, it is impossible not to notice that IDR is often associated with the concept of emergence. Emergence, in simple terms, means 'the process of coming into being' (Oxford Dictionary). Gibbons et al. (1994) refer to the 'emergence of a new mode of knowledge production as resulting from wider societal and cognitive pressures. It arises out of the existing disfunctionalities and breakdowns of disciplinary modes of problem-solving. In the language of self-organization, it emerges only once sufficient disturbances shake up the system of knowledge production' (p. 29). The same authors speak of 'instances of scientific creativity, of sudden insights and the opening up of novel pathways towards solutions [that] can be traced to encounters between scientists' (p. 38, ibid.). It is apparent that there is a certain side to the process of IDR and especially integration which is not entirely subject to planning or design. This observation corresponds very well to the earlier mentioned concern of those who argue against strategies in IDR, claiming that such strategies remove from the process the creativity, unpredictability which seems to be an essential and important aspect. In this way, IDR appears as something complex, non-linear; in fact, as Repko (2012) concedes, there is indeed a great deal of non-linearity involved in the process, including feedback loops, proceeding and returning, integrating insights partially on the way. Apart from that, the author emphasises that to a great extent interdisciplinary teams rely on scientific intuition, the individual quality that allows to evaluate and understand insights without rational analysis. Such analysis may sometimes be impossible when insights from one discipline are evaluated in the light of another; therefore, without intuition the whole enterprise of interdisciplinary integration could prove impossible. This has to do with the structures underlying the process. According to Gibbons et al. (1994), in interdisciplinary science new norms have to emerge that will inform the 24

social and cognitive structure of the research process; the norms that operate within participating disciplines simply cannot be adjusted. All in all, the discussion of the non-linearity and emergent qualities of interdisciplinary process add to it a somewhat unsettling yet exciting sense of unpredictability. Indeed, it was suggested by Popper (2002) that discovery of new knowledge is unpredictable, and, according to Weingart (2000), interdisciplinarity simply provides a good platform for its occurrence. However, in spite of the discourse on emergence in the context of IDR, there has been little effort to show specific links between emergence and integration. Newell (2001) writes extensively about the importance of application of complexity theory on IDR, but falls short of drawing specific analogies between components and relations within systems and within IDR processes. In the current section, the comparison of concepts of emergence and integration is presented, with the awareness of the limitations and a fairly abstract nature of such comparison. So what is emergence, and what is its theoretical relation to integration? Emergence, in the definition of Goldstein (1999, p. 49), is 'the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns, and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems'. The five properties of emergence include, according to Goldstein (1999): 1) 'radical novelty' (properties that were previously not observed, unpredictable, 'non-deducible' from previously known components; 2) coherence (unity of lower-level components that persists over time); 3) occurrence at macro-level (relating to the system as a whole, not to any of its parts); 4) dynamics (occurring as a result of a system's development over time); 5) and ostensiveness (emergent qualities manifest themselves). Since the idea of emergence belongs to general systems theory, it can be assumed that these properties are supposed to characterise patterns of systems in general, regardless whether a system is natural, artificial or social. However, when applied to social systems, the concept of emergence has to be further elaborated. When it comes to social sciences, emergence is understood as 'the processes whereby the global behaviour of a system results from the actions and interactions of agents' (Sawyer, 2005, p. 2), or 'collective phenomena that are collaboratively created by individuals, yet are not reducible to individual action' (p. 6, based on the social theories of micro-macro link). An example of emergence in the social sciences is language shift, which is an unintentional phenomenon resulting from multiple conversations over a period of time; this example is similar to emergence in natural systems, such as a flock of birds which takes a V shape not as a result of leadership or group coordination, but only coordination between pairs of birds, adjusting their behaviour to each other (Sawyer, 2005). Sawyer (ibid) uses emergence theory as an instrument to question methodological individualism, an approach in social sciences that describes society on the basis of individual behaviour. The author argues that 'the first social emergence theorist' was 25

Durkheim (p. 5), and that emergence theory in social sciences can be derived from the least understood parts of Durkheim's original arguments. The author also refers to socioculturalists exploring the collective creativity of small groups. Newell (2001) offers an analogue of self-organisation with regard to IDR: 'selfintegrating or self-synthesising' (p. 9). He professes a theory of interdisciplinarity which is entirely embedded in complex systems theory. According to Newell, interdisciplinary work can be regarded as a system which exhibits emergent properties, in the sense that interdisciplinary insights, woven together, represent more than their sum. He stresses non-linearity of the process, based on the fact that interdisciplinary study concerns itself with complex systems, and that the emergent properties of integration make it difficult to achieve. Thus, Newell endorses the use of the emergence concept in application to interdisciplinarity. He suggests that the process of IDR can and should be regarded in complexity terms, and that epistemology of interdisciplinarity is firmly rooted in complexity. The author complains that the steps of IDR process suggested in studies of IDR methodology are not based on such epistemology, but rather on empirical observations. There are certain limitations when it comes to the use of complexity theory (and therefore emergence) in social sciences, and Newell (ibid) presents them in his article, even though he strongly endorses such use. According to him, the theories should be modified in order to account for the conscious and self-aware behaviour of individuals, their free will and ability not only to imagine an alternative reality, but to use their agency so as to bring it about – in other words, change structure through agency. In systems language, the ability of agents to foresee the consequences of their actions allows them to change relationships in the system, create new feedback loops, and overall increase its unpredictability. And yet, Newell firmly believes that complexity theory can and should be used when applied to IDR, even though somewhat fails to explain exactly how the concepts of complexity are translated into IDR process (ibid). Newell's theory leaves much unclear. Even though he promises that the steps of the strategy of IDR process that he puts forward are derived on the basis of systems thinking, it is hard to understand why this is so, and how these proposed steps are fundamentally different from other suggested strategies of IDR. However, the claim of Newell that interdisciplinarity is epistemologically connected to complexity theory may not be entirely void. On closer examination, it can be observed that all the five properties of emergence outlined by Goldstein (1999) have relevance to IDR and the process of integration. Let us explore this in detail. In the previous section, we have already seen that interdisciplinary knowledge is something new, which did not exist before; it can not be derived on the basis of simply adding its components, and represents the knowledge of the whole group, not one of its members; it requires time and certain development of group process; finally, it should be tangible and testable, constitute something that can be communicated within the group as well as to the audiences beyond it. In fact, if we look back at the criteria of integration which we specified at the end of section 3.1, we will see that all the five properties of emergence are mentioned in slightly different form in the criteria of integration (Table 1). 26

Properties of emergence

Criteria of integration

1. Novelty

'Is the resulting understanding new (did not exist before)?'

2. Coherence

'Is it intellectually coherent/stable?'

3. Relates to system as a whole at the 'Is it more than the sum of insights?' 'Can it be reduced to the comprising macro-level insights?' and 'Does the group collectively own the intellectual property over the result?' 4. Dynamics

'Did this understanding occur as a result of a group process?'

5. Ostensiveness (tangibility) 'Can this understanding be communicated/tested?' Table 1. Correspondence between properties of emergence and criteria of integration.

The concept of emergence, being part of complexity theory, has been long discussed and disputed in social sciences. Alexander and Giesen (1987) present a comprehensive study of these discussions in the introduction to The Micro-Macro Link, a book dedicated to the long-standing dichotomy of the individual and the collective in the history of social sciences, and to the confrontation between methodological individualists and methodological holists. The discussion about the individual and the collective is tightly link with the discussion of emergence. According to Alexander and Giesen (ibid, p. 19): 'Individualists such as Hayek (1952), Popper (1958, 1961) … claimed that the concept of emergence should be reserved for the relation between mind and body. It serves to demarcate the realm of autonomy, free will, and deliberation from the realm of material nature and determinism. To speak of emergence as referring to the relation between individuals and collectivities, they argued, is to deny individual autonomy and to subject human beings to the will of supraindividual powers. Social entities such as institutions and collectivities cannot exist without the individuals who create and support them. They must therefore be regarded as ontologically dependent on the actions and cannot, for this reason, exhibit emergent properties'.

However, methodological holists (e.g. Mandelbaum, 1955) are of the view that emergence properties characterise the results of individual actions. According to Alexander and Giesen (1987) and Münch and Smelser (1987), Durkheim and Marx worked largely from a macro-perspective of society, irreducible to the sum of individual actions. '[Marx's] focus earlier was on emergent properties located at the empirical level of the individual; his focus later is on emergent properties located at the empirical level of the group, collectivity, and system' (Alexander and Giesen, 1987, p. 6). It is important to realise that the discussion of emergence, if taken to the level of philosophy and politics, can have important implications. At that level it can be interpreted as a discussion about the primacy of society over citizens, about democratic and economic freedoms (Alexander and Giesen, 1987), and serve to support or critique certain regimes and political agendas (communism, neoliberalism, sustainable development).

27

3.4. Emergent strategies Given the emergent nature of IDR, what does it tell us about the factors of its success? Does it simply mean that IDR process should be left unstructured, deprived of any strategy or design? Possibly, but not necessarily. What is a strategy? It is usual to think of a strategy as something rigid, a formulated plan which an organisation or a group of people is obliged, once adopted, to strictly follow. However, one of the most celebrated thinkers in the sphere of strategic management, Mintzberg (2007), has a different view. According to him, strategies can be formulated and realised; however, they are also always created ad hoc by people's actions. Strategy, according to this approach, is a pattern, which does not require intention, but only some consistency of behaviour, so that the pattern can emerge over time. Mintzberg sees types of strategies in a continuum: on the one side of the scale there is a deliberate strategy, which is only an ideal, and never is realised. On the other side is the so-called emergent strategy, a pattern of actions that realises itself in the absence of any intention. Obviously, as it is difficult to imagine a group of people having no intentions whatsoever concerning their common activity, most real-life strategies will fall somewhere in between of the two ideals; thus, every deliberate strategy, when realised, will manifest a certain degree of emergence. In their book, Mintzberg, Quinn and Ghoshal define strategy as 'the pattern or plan that integrates an organisation's major goals, policies and action sequences into a cohesive whole' (Quinn, 1998, p. 5). The approach of Mintzberg and his colleagues to strategy allows us to reconcile the concepts of strategy and emergence in IDR, to show that the emergent nature of interdisciplinary integration is fully compatible with the expectations that the process of IDR is, at least to a certain extent, strategic. Therefore, there is no dichotomy between strategy and emergence, and it is possible to answer the concerns both of those who see IDR as a creative process that should not be stifled, and of those who urge that it is a process that can be planned, learned and improved. 3.5. Integration: strategy and emergence (conclusions) From this chapter we have found out that integration is a cognitive process, that it involves critical evaluation of disciplinary insights and the creation of a common ground between them, that the result of integration is a new knowledge which is comprehensive, more than and irreducible to the sum of its parts, and assumes reconciliation of conflicting epistemologies. We have seen that IDR is guided by the complex nature of the problems it confronts, and that the synthesis of theories must provide a stronger explanation of a problem than those theories taken separately. The result of integration is difficult to assess due to its cognitive complexity and intuitive components; it can exist in different degrees (full or partial) and types (empirical, methodological or theoretical). We have also found out that although some researchers suggest that constructing specific strategies for integration is inadvisable, as it diminishes the role of creativity and therefore undermines integration, others believe that integration is a conscious process that can and should be designed and learned. 28

The main theoretical concepts, those of integration, strategy and emergence, are taken from diverse areas of knowledge; we had to revert to three distant fields of interdisciplinary studies, strategic management, and systems theory. Emergence reflects the creative, the unexpected, the synergistic aspects of IDR as a method of studying complex systems. In social sciences, emergence implies that global behaviour results from actions of agents, but is irreducible to them – a theory that supports methodological collectivism in sociology. The view that IDR exhibits emergent properties corresponds to distributed cognition theory in psychology with its emphasis on the properties of a collective mind, and structuration theory in sociology, emphasising the complex relationship between structure and agency. At the same time, researchers can be expected to design a strategy that allows them to deliberately evaluate insights in order to produce a new, coherent knowledge. In this process, they encounter difficulties as a result of their belonging to different communities of practice, competing for status and identifying themselves through their divergent epistemologies and ontologies. Such strategies may vary in type: group learning, negotiation among experts, integration by a leader, reasoning through analogies, developing complex explanations, proceeding through checks and balances, etc. As for the specific steps that need to be taken, they boil down to the critical evaluation of what disciplines have to offer: scrutiny of insights they produce, their applicability, theories, methods, assumptions that help to arrive at them. A great emphasis is unanimously placed by different authors on specification of terms and resolution of conflicts, whose sources include concepts, theories, philosophical assumptions (ontological, epistemological and value-based). However, there is no dichotomy between these two understandings of interdisciplinarity; we have discovered that strategies which become realised in real-life situations might be to some extent deliberate, but will always be to some extent emergent; in fact, strategies should not be seen as only plans, but plans as well as patterns of individual behaviours which show consistency over time. Emergence in IDR does not deny the importance of strategy; rather, it implies that the realised strategy will ideally create conditions for the new knowledge to emerge. In order to create conditions for integration, researchers have to challenge their ontological, epistemological and value-based assumptions and be open to new perspectives. Given that assumptions are implicit and instilled in researchers by years of education and scientific practice (Bourdieu, 1990), researchers have to display a great level of open-mindedness and epistemological reflexivity.

29

4. The practice of interdisciplinary research: Case analysis 4.1. Description of the methodology and its relevance The rationale of choosing the case study method is based on the following criteria of this approach as outlined by Yin (2003): case studies allow to understand complex social phenomena; they are ideal for a study of small group behaviour; they are well-suited for study of processes, especially organisational; they are exploratory in nature: applied to phenomena about which not much is known;  they are descriptive and provide a lot of detail;  they help answer a question 'how' or 'why'.    

These criteria are applicable to the aims of the current study, because the best way to find out about the process of the team research is to ask its participants; the case study approach will allow to explore the IDR processes holistically, and to focus on the actual experiences of the researchers themselves. The interdisciplinary research project analysed in the current study was conducted by a team of researches in Sweden. The study is based on the analysis of the following items:  application to the funding body, including the goal and plan of research and participants' CVs;  researchers' profiles on departmental websites and in their CVs, including analysis of their publication lists;  6 interviews with 7 researchers (one interview was conducted with two researchers at the same time), out of 9 researchers who remained part of the team till the end of the project;  5 collective articles produced as a result of the research process;  two observations: one during a seminar where research was presented and commented upon by external researchers (Observation 1), and one during a discussion of one of the final articles by its three main authors (Observation 2). The interviews with researchers were semi-structured. This type of interviews allow to focus on the central concepts of the study, and at the same time giving enough flexibility to explore the process in depth. The advantage of using interviews is that they are targeted (it was possible to ask specific questions about IDR process as experienced by its participants), and insightful (the participants themselves provided some explanations and analysis). The questions were asked according to the interview protocols, designed through operationalisation of the main concepts of study (integration, strategy and emergence). They were modified from one interview to another to include the possibility for verification of information, and to be able to contrast different opinions on the same subject. Probes and additional questions were used to check on the informants' understanding of concepts, and cross-checking between different informants on whether 30

they use terms in the same way. These measures allowed to ensure construct validity – correct operationalisation of concepts and constructs that the study aims at analysing (defined by Yin, 2003). All points of view expressed by researchers were addressed indiscriminately, and were integrated into the case analysis to the highest possible degree, even if they contradicted each other; such contradictions were analysed. Different data sources were used (triangulation by using documents, interviews and observations); interviews were recorded with the permission of informants, combined with note-taking; no-one refused from being recorded. All participants available for interview during the period of study were interviewed (7 out of 9 active members of the project). These measures were taken with the aim of ensuring the reliability of the study (reproducibility of the study with the same results by another researcher; Yin, 2003). Subjectivity of respondents did not present a serious problem for the present study, because subjective opinions were sought after. The information could be validated by comparing insights between interviews, to eliminate the consequences of poor recall by the informants of the most important facts of the process. Contradictions between respondents were either resolved by confirming exact meanings of concepts used, or, if not resolved, presented in the results of the case study as an insight in itself. It was insightful to know what people disagreed about, and how it reflected the interdisciplinary nature of their research process. The interviews were conducted with a semi-formal approach, neutral way of questioning, avoidance of value-laden or controversial questions. Full anonymity was ensured; no names will be mentioned in this paper, even though the participants of the project may guess about the source of their colleagues' opinions and quotes. These steps were taken to avoid the danger of reactivity, which implies, according to Gibb (2007), the influence that an interviewer can have on the interview process. However, a certain degree of reactivity is inevitable, and it has to be addressed through researcher's reflexivity: awareness of the researcher's subjective interpretations of the qualitative data (Davies, 2008). A reflection about the research process will be offered in Chapter 6. 4.2. Description of the case The unit of analysis of the current study is a case: an interdisciplinary research project. The project includes the team, the research processes, and the results of research. For the choice of a project, the following criteria were to be fulfilled:  the project was performed by a team of researchers;  the team was interdisciplinary (involved researchers from natural and social sciences);  the problem of investigation was interdisciplinary;  the project had a limited time scope, and approaching the final stage of integration, where the results could already be analysed. The identification of disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers is not straightforward; sometimes it is difficult to label a researcher with a specific disciplinary tag. The distinction in this thesis will be based on researchers' degrees and how they themselves 31

identify their disciplines, even though they might publish in other disciplines or hold other disciplinary interests and views. Below are brief profiles of researchers at the moment of their engagement in the project, based on their CVs and research publications4. Researcher 1 (not interviewed): Title: associate professor, project leader. Degrees in agricultural sciences. Researcher 2: Title: professor. Degrees in agronomy, crop/soil science, chemistry. Researcher 3: Title: associate professor. Degrees in sociology and social sciences. Researcher 4 (not interviewed): Title: Doctor. Degrees in agricultural sciences. Researcher 5: Title: Doctor. Degrees in economics, ecological economics, history of ideas. Researcher 6: Title: Doctor. Degrees in human geography, environment and development studies. Researcher 7: Title: Doctor. Degrees in geography and anthropology. Researcher 8: PhD student. Degrees in biology. Researcher 9: PhD student. Degrees in law, political philosophy and social sciences. As can be seen from these profiles, at least three out of nine researchers can be considered (and call themselves) interdisciplinarians. Therefore, most researchers have sensitised themselves to a variety of theories, approaches and methods, and have multiple identities from the beginning, even if some identities may become dominant in the group process. This also allows to conclude that interdisciplinary projects are of a special interests to those who have diverse disciplinary backgrounds. The main objective of the project, according to the Application, was to study social, economic and ecological aspects of sustainability in the global South and their connection with consumption in the North. Researchers specifically referred to the interdisciplinary nature of their project and their intention to combine theories and methodologies of various disciplines. The research was carried out through analysis of specific cases, and the cases included agricultural development projects in one country in Africa, and one in Latin America, and extraction and production of several marine resources in another Latin American country (Application). The funding received by the project officially lasted for three years. The pre-funding phase lasted approximately 1.5 years (initial discussions, preparation of the application). The post-funding phase has lasted for about a year; at the moment (November 2012) the researchers are finalising the last few articles they are going to publish (collective and individual). The current study of the project has been

4

Researchers are coded differently from interviews, so Profile 1 does not correspond to Interview 1 or Interviewee 1. This is done for anonymity reasons.

32

conducted during two months of the post-funding phase, i.e. September and October 2012. 4.3. Project strategy 4.3.1. Interdisciplinary intention From the outset of the project, the researchers had an intention of conducting an interdisciplinary study with theoretical and methodological integration. They wanted to create something theoretically and methodologically new. Discussion of interdisciplinarity and the opportunities it offers was their initial inspiration, and the original motivation behind the project (Interview 1). The initial design of the project included three theoretical approaches including an 'alternative' branch of economics, political ecology and systems ecology, and three methodologies: emergy, qualitative participant tools, and analysis of spoken and written communication (Interview 1, Application). These triangulations of theory and methods are an example of the group's interdisciplinary intention: combining approaches of natural and social sciences to produce an integrated understanding of the problem. According to the funding application, the intention was to strengthen political ecology and ecological economics by mutually informing them; both streams of thought explore access to resources and the manner of their use, but political ecology is more concerned with structure and agency, whereas ecological economics – with exchange. By combining the two approaches, and by applying emergy synthesis to further deepen the analysis, the researchers were hoping to achieve a meaningful synthesis and a new understanding of the problem they sought to address. However, Interviewee 4 suggested that the theoretical background of the study was not defined well enough. Each of the three approaches chosen for the project can generate various theories and perspectives (apart from systems ecology, which is in that sense more determined). The same could be said about methods. Again, with the exception of emergy analysis (which is quite concrete as a method), the other methods required further specification, in the opinion of the researcher. An important source of information about the project's intentions were the articles produced in the framework of the research project. Five such articles were analysed:  Article 1 – a conference article produced before the beginning of the project, which outlines the intention, background, theoretical and methodological approaches of the project;  Article 2 – a methodological integration of emergy analysis and participant tools in a Latin American country with respect to agricultural production;  Article 3 – theoretical and methodological integration to analyse an agricultural development programme in an African country;  Article 4 – analysis of marine resources management in a Latin American country;  Article 5 – one of the two common synthesising articles (in progress).

33

The articles vary in the level of interdisciplinary intention they express. Articles 4 and 5 imply interdisciplinarity as a result of analysis of a question which is itself interdisciplinary. They provide analysis of social, ecological and political aspects and integrate information traditionally researched by different disciplines. Both use qualitative methods, both are written by social scientists and strive to strengthen theories of social sciences. It is important to note that although Article 5 is designed as a synthesising article, its main authors are social scientists and its theoretical approach is dominated by social sciences. The reasons for this will be analysed further on. Articles 2 and 3 are more ambitious when it comes to integration and interdisciplinarity. Article 2 aims to be interdisciplinary in data collection and method. Its theoretical foundation is from natural sciences, whereas methods are combined from social and natural sciences. Article 3 displays, perhaps, the highest ambition of integration among the articles analysed. It aims to be transdisciplinary, acknowledges complexity, and explicitly aims to achieve integrative understanding. Article 1 (the first article written by the project group) is the most eloquent in describing its interdisciplinary intention, utilising such epithets as 'integrative', 'holistic', 'deep', referring to interdisciplinarity as a 'paradigm shift in science', and aspiring at synthesis of disciplinary knowledge. 4.3.2. Planning and organisation of the research process According to Mintzberg (1998), one of the main aspects of any strategy is the policy of an organisation or group. For the project group under study, the source of policy was the application to the funding body. A few people took the lead in writing the application, each responsible for a particular theoretical and/or methodological part. Everyone else in the project group read and commented on the application. If during the research process issues and disagreements arose, the researchers reverted to the application as the guiding policy, seeking to solve such disagreements or issues (Interview 1). However, some researchers (Interview 5) found that the application-writing process was not sufficiently effective. They considered the brainstorming process unfocused, and noted that from the very beginning it was obvious that the level of commitment to interdisciplinarity and to the main goals of the project varied among participants. Researchers divided themselves into groups according to a case study (country groups). Each group was organised in such a way that it had at least one 'social scientist' and one 'natural scientist' (as mentioned earlier, this distinction is somewhat problematic, because many researchers in the group had interdisciplinary backgrounds). Every group had their own research question and plan of a field trip. These were discussed at the first meeting of the whole group, as well as how many papers were planned to be written and what conferences should be attended. Three more whole-group meetings were conducted, which included discussions of research design, ontological and epistemological questions (Interview 1). However, the major part of the research was conducted in small groups. Each group made at least two trips to their case areas (Interview 1). According to Interviews 1 and 2, the researchers did not have a clear strategy of how disciplinary insights were to be integrated. 'We were naïve, thinking that if we just start 34

working together, everything would work out automatically'. The project would have benefited from a more 'reflective approach' (Interview 3). Interviewee 4 was disappointed with the research design of the project, complaining that the research questions were not sufficiently determined, which was a 'fundamental mistake', making the cases incomparable, and therefore preventing integration: 'People were looking for different things'. The organisation of research in groups did not work well from his perspective. He was also disappointed that there was much more emphasis on production than consumption, which in his opinion undermined the main idea of the project. In one case, as the group consisted mainly of natural scientists, the data collected were not sufficient to make sense of the case in the theoretical terms of social sciences. Other researchers also criticised the general organisation of the project: 'too many people, too little time, too wide a focus' (Interview 5). They also found a problem with leadership: they felt that the project was too 'democratic' in the sense that there was no explicit establishment of hierarchy according to responsibilities ('everyone was supposed to be equal). They emphasised that stronger leadership would provide better guidelines on how to handle conflict. Apparently, the 'policy document' in the form of the funds application proved insufficient for conflict resolution. The reason for that may be that the researchers did not establish very clearly what role the document should play throughout research; its initial role is attracting income to the project, but how binding it was in other aspects might not have been clear to everyone. 4.3.3. Emergent strategy patterns Apparently, the group managed to capitalise on different people's competencies, both scientific (when developing theories and methods) and practical (when organising the study trips) (Interview 1). The most obvious and decisive organisational pattern was clustering, both planned and emergent. On the one hand, it happened as a result of the planned division into groups according to the country they were planning to research. On the other, people formed groups naturally with those whose opinions they shared, and provided a lot of support to each other, sometimes 'colluding' against others (Interview 1, 2). According to Interview 3, 'Big team split into sub-teams, and those into sub-sub teams'. Most learning seem to have happened in such small groups: the new interdisciplinary findings were produced there, as well as new methodological merging (Interview 1). Interviewee 3 said that small groups allowed for deeper discussions, and admitted that it was easier to work with people with similar disciplinary backgrounds. There was however chance for re-grouping and discussion. According to Interview 1, in such cross-groups they tried to understand the meaning behind common concepts (such as power). According to Interview 3, researchers organised meetings with the purpose to explain to each other their perspectives of the most crucial concepts. The big group meetings allowed to realise the differences in ontologies (Interview 1). In such meetings, a lot of time was spent in ontological discussions, which, according to Interview 1, was not effective. 35

One group was selected to be responsible for the integration of the research results. The group consisted of four people (two social and two natural scientists), joined in the process by one more person (a social scientist). This seems to be a version of 'integration by a leader', a strategy suggested by Rossini and Porter (1979); in the present case, 'integration by a group'. However, the group has not so far achieved to final goal of producing a final article; instead, they decided to split and write two separate ones (Interviews 1, 2). One pattern which could very well be expected concerned the tendency to consult 'experts' within the group about certain aspects, which implies trust and respect for other disciplines' knowledge. For example, social scientists were willing to refer to experts on emergy in their group when writing their own article: 'We cannot check, we just refer to their article' (Observation 2). Interviewee 4 is keen on using the insights generated by the people working on emergy analysis in his own work, and sharing it with them to see how they will perceive his interpretations. At the same time, in some cases the reliance on the 'other' in the group was not satisfactory. According to Interviewee 1 (a social scientist), the expectation of confirming certain social science theories with emergy analysis was not fully met, because the ability to collect emergy data was somewhat limited (emergy diagrams were 'too sketchy'). This can be interpreted (arguably) as a disappointment with the 'natural scientists' who did not provide what social scientists had expected from them. One of those directly involved in emergy analysis admitted that it was not done to the extent they had hoped, and explained that the main reason behind this was lack of time for this highly complex, time consuming procedure, so they had to satisfy themselves with a 'light version'. One group within the project group described their work as quite effective. They had a lot of meetings, where they discussed the work and the produced texts in a lot of detail; they had an efficient 'division of labour'. The leader of the group was also the main author of the article they produced, and, although it gave her a lot of additional responsibility, it also helped to prevent conflicts; in case of disagreement she had to take the final decision, and others entrusted her with that. They described the process as slow and difficult, and they produced only one article, but they were keen on working together in an integrated fashion ('We could have produced more if we worked less time together'). 4.4. Challenges of IDR During the research process, the participants of the project faced different types of challenges: teamwork issues, interpersonal conflicts, deficiencies in research design or understanding of and commitment to design, etc. Obviously, teamwork issues and personal misunderstandings can arise in any project, not only interdisciplinary, and therefore they do not constitute interest for this paper, even though they influenced the research process and its result. It is extremely difficult to divide challenges into those which are research-related and those which are not. After all, research (and especially group research) can be considered a social practice where interaction between individuals is of primary importance. Therefore the challenges presented further represent an account of what 36

researchers themselves considered crucial for how research was conducted, bracketing out some of the more 'personal' or 'logistical' matters. The classification of such challenges is for analytical purposes and is based in part on researchers' own classification, and in part on the author's categorisation of conflicts for the purposes of the study. 4.4.1. Methodological challenges These included, for example, disagreements about how interviews and participant observations should be conducted. Such disagreements were relatively easily resolved by division of responsibilities: instead of the whole subgroup collecting data, they assigned data collection to a part of the subgroup who had more experience in the respective methods (Interview 3). However, in other cases they were detrimental to the project, because they made at least one country group split into subgroups (Interview 2, 3). There was a disagreement about the unit of analysis appropriate for the study in one of the country groups (the unit was defined in the Application, according to Interview 2, but was being reformulated post factum, together with research methods, once the group was in the field). The agenda for field research was not followed and some researchers did not have the competence in carrying out the agreed-upon methods, according to Interview 2; according to Interview 4, however, the methods which had been agreed upon did not seem appropriate to some of the researchers on the site. It can be tentatively concluded that there was no strong agreement on and commitment to the methods prior to the field trip, and the researchers did not clarify their levels of competence, preferences in methods, possible work distribution and leadership. 4.4.2. Conceptual misunderstandings According to Observations 1 and 2, the researchers encountered problems of interpreting concepts; they discovered a 'translational problem' – there were certain 'signifiers, but they signif[ied] different things'. The most problematic concepts included:  self-organisation in natural and social systems (Observation 1, Interview 2: social scientist do not favour the idea of self-organisation in social systems);  ecology (Observation 2: social scientists understood ecology differently from natural scientists, including in the concept not only nature, but also society);  power (Interview 1: in social sciences is realised through artificially created structures, whereas in natural is mainly embodied in energy flows);  hierarchy (Interview 3: discrepancies in understanding similar to those concerning power). There were many attempts at discussing concepts according to different disciplines' understanding of them. 'We were talking different languages' (Interview 2). Initially, the level of understanding was low, but the group worked hard to overcome this limitation and to arrive at a shared understanding (Interview 3). However, according to Pickett et al. (1992, p. 304), 'common language may still hide divergent assumptions'. Miller and Boix Mansilla (2004, p. 8) confirm this by saying that 'the illusion of mutual understanding... stems from the fact that different disciplines often use the same terms to refer to very different phenomena'. Therefore, developing 37

common language did not resolve the problem; clarification of concepts revealed more fundamental differences. 4.4.3. Theoretical challenges One of the researchers (Interview 4) urged that the main problem in the project had to do with lack of clarity on the theoretical frameworks. The theories used by different researchers produced insights that proved irreconcilable at both ontological and epistemological levels. However, the informant conceded that variation in theory and insights thus generated is not necessarily an interdisciplinary problem; this can happen within disciplines, too. 4.4.4. Ontological conflicts At a closer examination, it becomes apparent that some of the conceptual concepts researchers struggled with reveal conflicts deeper than merely conflicts of language. They can be regarded as signs of an ontological divide which happened between the natural and the social scientists. This observation is confirmed by Interviewee 3, who suggested that it was precisely when the level of understanding of each other's perspectives was reached that the real conflict surfaced: 'The level of mutual understanding was so high that it became a problem'. According to Interview 5, there were conflicts concerning their understanding of the world, and there emerged what the researchers called 'a big rift between systems ecologists and the social scientists'.5 Social scientists in the project believed that general systems theory cannot be applied to social systems, for three main reasons: hierarchy cannot be said to be governing a social system in the way it governs a natural system; power is not the same as the amount of energy used (even though connected with that aspect); and finally, the system cannot be said to work to everybody's advantage (Interview 1). According to Interview 1, natural scientists had an impression that social scientists believed that humans are not part of nature, and that they did not see social systems as socio-ecological. However, Interviewee 1 (a social scientist) dismissed such impressions of natural scientists about social scientists as erroneous. She suggested that social scientists believe that the social aspects of the system play a more prominent role in a socio-ecological system than natural scientists tend to see. According to Interview 7, the problem might have originated in social scientists' view of nature as a mechanistic system. Systems ecology challenges such a view and considers it outdated; however, social scientists might have perceived that such a view was imposed on them by systems ecologists, and were uncomfortable with it. Interviewee 7 assured that the paradigm of systems ecology is consistent with the perspectives used by

5 It has to be mentioned that 'natural' – 'social' division is only schematic. Firstly, some scientists had backgrounds in various fields; secondly, some people who were called 'natural scientists' by other researchers, referred to themselves as 'systems ecologists'.

38

social scientists in the project, and felt frustrated that social scientists did not acknowledge this. According to Interview 1, social scientists in the project appeared to have a constructivist view of the world as created by individuals, having no fixed rules, and potentially de-constructable. Natural scientists, in the informant's opinion, followed a more positivist perspective, where the world is subject to a stricter classification, and where interactions are defined by a set of rules. According to Interview 7, the attempts to understand conflicting ontologies came in the process too late. For a considerable amount of time the researchers operated on the basis of their preconceptions of each other's ontological perspectives. Hierarchy was described by natural sciences as non-normative and defined by energy flows and consumption, which was a view difficult to embrace for social scientists, who interpreted hierarchies as social constructions. As a result, there was a conflict of views on whether hierarchies can be challenged and dismantled: natural scientists believed they could not, social scientists – that they could (Interview 3). The nature of power was described by Interviewee 3 as the ability to influence the system on the basis of ownership of capital: social, cultural and economic. These forms of capital are 'backed up' by the ownership of physical resources, which is established historically, without a possibility of individual agents to organise themselves in a way that would allow them to influence these power structures in the short term. Social scientists believed that power structures were artificial constructs and could be changed by agency: individual or of social groups. As a result of this ontological division, the initial plan of writing one article together at the end of the research has not be implemented so far. The researchers split, deciding to write two separate articles (Interview 1), which suggestion came from social scientists (Observation 2). One article will be written by one group, and co-authored by the other group, and the other way round (Observation 2). However, according to Interviews 2 and 3, if disagreements are considerable, people might refuse to co-author an article because will not subscribe to the perspectives expressed in it; according to Interview 2, the refusal to subscribe is more likely to come from the social scientists. Interviewee 1 believes the ontological differences have not been reconciled, and perhaps never will be. Interviewee 3 confirms this, suggesting that they can never agree, and only convince each other to change perspective, which is not necessary. The solution for this is to 'agree to disagree', formulate their perspectives explicitly: 'This is how it works in my field of science'. It is important to have trust that the perspective of the other has a scientific foundation, that all are working for the same goal and 'trying to prove the same thing in different ways', and have mutual respect (Interview 3).

4.4.5. Epistemological conflicts It is important to note that, although one researcher explicitly said 'We did not have epistemological problems in the project' (Interview 1), another (Interview 3) formulated 39

some of the problems as epistemological, noting a very tight connection to ontological and theoretical differences. A definition of epistemology is given by Murphy (2011, p. 492) as 'the theory of knowledge that helps to delimit the boundary and scope of knowledge in different cultures. This includes defining what counts as knowledge, how knowledge is acquired, and understanding what knowledge people actually have'. According to Interview 3, an epistemological conflict arises out of a different perception of the world, which defines how one describes it, and how one identifies general trends. Epistemology denotes the kinds of questions one asks, based on 'pre-conceived ideas of how things work' (e.g. 'hierarchies are unalterable' – which is, it can be argued, an ontological assumption). Ontology and epistemology are coupled, and, in the view of the informant, the distinction between the two is unimportant. This opinion is confirmed by Interviewee 4, who also believes that ontology and epistemology are closely linked. The ontological question about the nature of a system leads to the epistemological question: 'How do we know a system?' Such questions, according to the researcher, were not discussed satisfactorily in the project. The nature of a system as a social construct involves a certain analytical approach to its study. According to the interviewee, 'You can never understand or explain the [socioecological] system by saying that all systems follow the same principles, rules, dynamics'. One example of an epistemological/ontological conflict had to do with the nature of systems. The belief to which some of the social scientists subscribed (that the system is a human construction) caused a lot of disagreement, and led to principally divergent views and conclusions (Interview 4). While conducting the interviews, it was possible to distinguish which researchers were on the 'social science' side, and who was on the 'natural science', or 'systems ecology' side. However, two researchers claimed (and appeared indeed) to be sitting on the fence - staying 'out of the conflict'. Their opinion was valuable as a more balanced one (Interview 5). They confessed that they found it 'hard to accept everything about systems ecology theory when it comes to society. When they do it too much [apply the theory social relationships], it becomes very deterministic'. They suggested that systems ecology was used to 'draw quite extreme conclusions', and that there was an ongoing debate about explanatory power of systems ecology theory. Social scientists claimed that the conceptual basis of systems ecology cannot explain social processes, whereas systems ecologists claimed that it could. A lot of time was spent in these discussions, and there was apparently no way for one side to prove the other the validity of their claims. Two more researchers group epistemological and ontological conflicts together. In their formulation, 'there were too many conflicts on what research is and how to understand the world' (Interview 5). 4.4.6. Problems of identity, research culture and areas of expertise Some researchers mentioned problems of identity, or belonging to a certain discipline, as one of the drives in the process of IDR. Interviewee 1 simply said that identity played 40

a major role in the process. Interviewee 2 noted that a lot had to do with 'prestige', with the struggle of 'social against natural sciences'. At the same time, it seemed as if both interviewees implied that one's disciplinary identity is very tightly related to one's personal identity and ego. Interviewee 3 suggested that one's discipline becomes one's identity and personality, that scientific conflict has the potential to be transformed into social conflict, and that the 'further you are scientifically or epistemologically, the higher the risk of an interpersonal conflict'. According to Interview 5, a major difficulty was a result of inflexibility of some of the researchers and their lack of open-mindedness: 'They cannot accept anything that is not their own perspective'. To a large extent, the identity problem had to do with the theories and ontologies that researchers adhered to: 'Some people are too focused on defining themselves in terms of their difference to others'. The interviewees contrasted this deficiency with their own sub-group research process, where they displayed willingness to compromise. They report to have had certain reservations about some parts of their common articles, but accepted them as necessary discomforts of their group writing process. On the other hand, it cannot be said that in the project there was a conflict between disciplinary identities per se, rather between specific insights that the disciplines generated. 'People were not discussing disciplinary backgrounds, they were discussing theories' (Interview 4). The identity of a researcher is much more complex than just belonging to a specific discipline. In the project, some people consider themselves transor interdisciplinarians, having received education in a number of disciplines. Moreover, insights produced by them did not depend on the discipline as much as on the approaches, theories, ideologies they adhered to. Another problem that researchers encountered had to do with areas of expertise. Social scientists envisioned a collaboration with natural scientists, assuming that they will combine and inform each other's perspectives on society and nature, respectively. However, systems ecologists in the project found themselves competent to produce their own explanations of social structures (Interviews 2, 4), while social scientists came up with theirs, which made it impossible to integrate the results. Interviewee 7 complained: The way [systems ecologists] wanted to make the synthesis was not accepted by some social scientists, without them offering another alternative [for integration]. It was interesting to see how people viewed each other's identities in the project. One researcher saw the adherents of the system ecology perspective as natural scientists who strive to explain the behaviour of the whole socio-ecological system without consulting social scientists (Interview 4). Interviewee 1 viewed systems ecologists as natural scientists who say that they are not natural scientist, but 'in fact they are'. Systems ecologists themselves do not regard systems ecology as a natural science; according to them, it studies complex socio-ecological systems on the basis of general systems theory, and that socio-ecological systems should not be divided into social and natural components. Another pattern observed had to do with appropriation of each other's perspectives and/or insights to enrich one's theories. Interviewee 5 mentioned that she observed how systems ecologists were seeking to use the social scientists' perspective to enrich systems ecology, whereas a social scientist was willing to 'use the conclusions from systems ecology on the use of natural resources' to strengthen his own perspective of 41

society. According to Interview 7, systems ecologists indeed felt willing to integrate the insights produced by social scientists in their perspective, but met with a lot of resistance. Interviewee 2 admitted that social scientists in the project were 'intolerant' to integration of conflicting perspectives. This pattern highlights the lack of interdisciplinary balance in the project, where one disciplinary perspective tries consistently to 'absorb', or 'use' the other perspectives, while remaining dominant in the shaping of the final understanding. Interviewee 4 mentions a 'protective' approach manifested in the project: the researchers, according to him, defended their cases and disciplinary competencies from scrutiny of others. Finally, difference in research cultures transpired in the course of the project. According to Interview 4, the culture of social sciences involves a great deal of reading and discussion. The researcher felt that his colleagues from social sciences had put more emphasis on literature review of conflicting theories, whereas the natural scientists were more selective in their background reading. Similar disappointments were shared by Interviewee 2. 4.4.7. Other issues There were also changes due to practical reasons; for example, one case study had to be cancelled because the researcher who was responsible for that case had left the project; there were also some shifts between the country groups (Interview 1). The group showed a clear dependence on each other's work. Two researchers stressed the fact that when one person left the project, they had to deal with the fact that she had not collected enough data and that 'no-one had a competence' to analyse them (Interview 5). This is perhaps a signal of mutual reliance of researchers, and might be regarded a sign of interdisciplinarity. The mutual dependence was problematic. In one case data collection was hindered by researchers' unfamiliarity with appropriate data collection techniques, lack of experience of some team members in fieldwork and lack of knowledge of the local language (Interview 2). In another case, an additional visit to the site was needed in order to help integrate research results, due to insufficiency of gathered data (Interview 4). Another pattern that transpired in the research process was the variance in motivation levels. According to Interview 1, people had different levels of interest to work in an interdisciplinary way. Interviewee 2 stressed that unfamiliarity with some of the chosen methodologies (specified in the Application) and lack of experience in fieldwork caused conflicts and problems.

42

4.5. Result of IDR 4.5.1. Integration Judging from the articles written by the researches, integration was achieved at various levels in different groups. Articles 4 and 5 were written by social scientists, and achieve integration at the level of questions, data collection, and analysis. Integration in Article 2 is achieved at the methodological level, where methods from different disciplines enhance systems analysis. The result of Article 3 presents a specific conclusion about the reason of failure of agricultural development programmes, and this conclusion is arrived at through a combination of theoretical and methodological approaches from different disciplines. The researchers themselves call this new understanding 'nonreductionist', complex and integrated, and believe that it closely reflects the reality. It is important to note that the subjective judgements of the participants and the principal investigator of a project are important in operationalising integration. (Porter and Rossini, 1985, cited in Lattuca, 2001). Let us see how the researchers themselves evaluated the results of the project in terms of integration. According to Interview 1, the project partially succeeded to achieve its goals and integrate the disciplinary insights (Interview 1). Interviewee 3 expressed the opinion that the scope of the research was multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary (failure to integrate). The main indicator of the lack of success was the inability of the researchers to produce one common article as a result of ontological differences which they could not reconcile (Interview 1). However, the goal of theoretical integration was to a certain extent achieved, even not to the extent the researchers had hoped. There was a good deal of methodological integration, in particular of participatory qualitative methods with emergy analysis. According to Interview 3, such blend of methods was not used in the past, so they managed to create methodological novelty. The satisfaction of researchers with the ability to combine participatory methods with emergy analysis confirms the observation of Pickett et al. (1999), who note that traditionally ecologists do not accept a possibility of interaction of researchers with the systems studied by them, and that new methods of participant research are important in the collaboration between social sciences and ecology. From a more general scientific perspective, the project is considered successful by Interviewee 1: the research questions were answered, which can be argued; for example, Interviewee 4 did not consider that the project as a whole had distinct research questions to begin with; from the application, one can extract objectives of the research, but not the research questions per se. Many more articles were published than originally expected (Interview 1), which is a good result in the opinion of the informant. This can be interpreted as an indicator of a general 'productivity' of the research, as these articles were produced individually or in small groups, and it does not in itself serve as evidence of interdisciplinary integration. According to Interview 5, at least one of the researchers presented the findings at a conference and met with interest and appreciation of scientific community. 43

Interviewee 3 stressed the importance of theoretical triangulation exercised by the group. Even though he did not regard it as a synthesis, but rather as a combination, in his view it produced a much stronger conclusion than application of the theories separately could achieve. He believes that the project arrived at a new understanding of power by quantifying an intuitive understanding of social science by physical resource flows, which made the group's argument much stronger (Interview 3). The problem with the result of the project, according to Interview 4, was that it was hard 'to see a thread' through the different case studies. This led to inability to use all the cases, and only one case was chosen for the final article. Another issue was lack of attention to the consumption side of the global equation, which resulted from feeble agreement on research design (Interview 4). Two researchers whose group managed, in their opinion (and also judging from the Article 3 which they produced together), to work in an integrated manner, stressed the importance of compromise. The 'big rift' between social scientists and system ecologists was not so strong in their group, owing to the fact that none of them was a 'hard-core systems ecologist' as they put it, and no-one tried to impose systems ecology view as the dominant one. At the same time, those who did not agree wholeheartedly with systems ecology perspective, decided to 'accommodate the strange things from systems ecology' in their common work. They considered this moderate position, openness to others' perspectives and willingness to compromise the main factor in achieving the level integration they managed to achieve (Interview 5). However, Interviewee 2 suggested that compromise may be sometimes signify a lack of in-depth understanding of ontologies. From this it can be concluded that compromise is possible either in case of no willingness to 'go deep', or in case where ontologies and epistemologies are not absolutely incompatible – a case which Klein (2008) called horizontal integration (see section 3.1). There was frustration shared within the group that the project did not work as effectively as it could. However, the inability to produce the final joint paper perhaps cannot be solely attributed to interdisciplinary problems as such. Interviewee 3 mentioned that there were also structural problems, such as limitations of funds and the necessity for researchers to 'move on' and devote their time to new projects, without being able to accomplish the current one. Moreover, the interviewee urges that 'editing the text with 10 authors generates practical problems'; however, such problems can be faced in a disciplinary group too, even though they are more pronounced in an interdisciplinary one. Interviewee 7 confirmed that structural problems, including the lack of time and planning, and the necessity to 'move on' resulted in the inability to complete the project. He also suggested that 'scientists are poor project managers', and that they are unwilling to adapt to structural limitations, due to perfectionist approach to research. From an outsider perspective, it seems obvious that the scientific potential of the project was not fully realised. An external commentator suggested that there should have been more cross-referencing between some of the articles, and they could considerably strengthen each other (Observations 1 and 2). Perhaps if the final overarching article was written, such reinforcing connections could be made, and the potential of the project could be realised to a greater extent – even though it would still not imply full integration. 44

4.5.2. Personal learnings Interviewee 1 felt that she would not like to work again in a tightly knit group. She strengthened her disciplinary perspectives (and confessed to become more 'radical' in her thinking when it comes to some ideological aspects), but did not feel she contributed to her original disciplines through her publications; in other words, she did not believe she developed anything that would enhance her own disciplines. It looks like the work in the project was enriching for individuals, in spite of the conflicts and frustrations. A systems ecologist says: 'It was wonderful to work with social scientists and see new aspects of social reality'. According to Interview 5, some researchers did not find the process of common project work academically useful, because, as they complain, too much time was spent in ineffective discussions of ontologies and theories. However, these group discussions gave them insights into 'how other people think', and the opportunity to learn about 'other theories and methods', so they found them useful for their own academic development.

45

5. Results By way of summing up the findings from the current case of interdisciplinary research process, the following points should be highlighted. The project group stated explicitly the intention to work in an interdisciplinary way, acknowledging the complexity of their topic. The group displayed an awareness of the value of interdisciplinarity and used the interdisciplinary discourse in a fairly sophisticated way when stating their intentions in the funding application and the first conference article they produced together. However, the achievement of interdisciplinary integration was not uninhibited. First of all, the interest in interdisciplinarity was not shared equally by the whole group, and the group leaders did not 'infect' all the group members equally with the interdisciplinary zeal. Secondly, the group encountered a great variety of hindrances: structural, social and cognitive on the way to achieving their goal. Although the group had a policy – the application to the research funding body, containing guidelines and principles of the study – they did not have a clear, thought-out strategy of integration. Of course, they had a research plan and research design (which was deemed by some unsatisfactory), but they did not have a commonly shared understanding on how to enquire into each other's differences in ontologies and epistemologies, and how to reconcile them. The following patterns could be observed in the research process:  clustering, both planned and spontaneous, sometimes with collusions of likeminded people (see 4.3.3);  small groups were sources of learning and innovation (see 4.3.3);  a lot of effort invested in trying to understand the meaning behind concepts (see 4.4.2);  a lot of effort invested in ontological discussions (see 4.4.4);  interdependence, division of labour and reliance on the competence of 'experts' (sometimes resulting in disappointment) (see 4.3.3, 4.4.7);  the need to navigate conflicts: social, methodological, conceptual, ontological, epistemological, those of status and identity (see 4.4);  clarification of concepts reveals fundamental differences (see 4.4.2);  theories used by different researchers produce insights that prove irreconcilable at both ontological and epistemological levels (see 4.4.4, 4.4.5);  a rift between natural and social scientists, engendered by differences in ontology, epistemology, status conflict, conflict over the area of expertise and explanatory power and applicability of theories (see 4.4.4, 4.5.1);  inability (so far) to write one common article (see 4.5.1);  inability (or true impossibility) to reconcile ontological differences (see 4.4.4);  limited ability to compromise when it comes to methodological, theoretical and ontological differences (see 4.5.1);  the fear of 'losing depth' when compromising ontological and epistemological perspectives (see 4.5.1); 46

 a very tight interrelation between ontology, epistemology and identity (see 4.4.5);  a very tight interrelation between disciplinary and socio-psychological identity (see 4.4.6);  the mutual attempts at appropriation by one discipline of another discipline's perspectives and/or insights to enrich its own explanations, while keeping it a dominant and 'correct' one – in other words, a lack of interdisciplinary balance (see 4.4.6);  the need to navigate the difference in research cultures (selection of reading, writing styles, etc.) (see 4.4.6);  achievement of integration within small groups at different levels and of different types (methodological, theoretical triangulation, etc.) (see 4.5.1);  theoretical integration provides strong argument (see 4.5.1);  methodological integration provides new, stronger methods for research (see 4.5.1). Apparently, the level of mutual understanding in the project was quite high. However, reaching mutual understanding did not resolve conflicts; in fact, it only exacerbated it. Principally divergent perspectives on the key issues, once identified and understood, could not be reconciled. Not all problems that researchers encountered with were interdisciplinary, and those which were did not necessarily mean a split between social and natural sciences; there were disagreements between social scientists as well. However, as some of the researchers noted, it was easier for them to resolve conflicts with representatives of closely related disciplines than bridge the gap between the perspectives of the natural and social scientists in the project. The following recommendations were put forward for scientists engaging in IDR by the participants of the research project under study:  Discuss ontologies: what does the world look like? What is it governed by? (Interview 1).  Discuss epistemologies: how do we learn? 'What does it mean that we are learning that way?' (Interview 1).  Clarify theoretical frameworks from the very beginning (Interview 4).  Adopt a strategy of integration and problem solving.  Be open to accept perspectives you are not wholly comfortable with, and 'agree to disagree' (Interview 3).  Be prepared to compromise (Interview 5).  Work intensively together for short periods, rather than stretch collaboration over time (Interview 3).  Invest time and planning in team-building and social relationships (Interview 3). IDR takes much more time than a disciplinary teamwork, because in the disciplinary research process one has a better understanding of what the results will look like, whereas in IDR results are much more unpredictable, and more time is required to build 'mutual understanding'. This insight is confirmed by Pickett et al. (1999), who stress that IDR requires sufficient investment of time and effort as a group process that must be nurtured. 47

 Ensure strong leadership; according to Interview 4, the main role of a leader in an interdisciplinary project, in the light of many disagreements, is to ensure compliance with the collectively agreed 'rules', and that the group follows the research design. This view fully coincides with that of two more researchers', who also stressed the role of leadership in ensuring coherence of the research process (Interview 5).  Keep the project simple. Two researchers (Interview 5) suggested that interdisciplinary projects are complex enough as they are, so they should not be burdened with too many people, cases, locations, and too complex research questions and ambitions. From Interview 1 it was not quite clear what would happen if the ontologies were discussed at the very beginning, and incompatibilities would have been found that could not have been reconciled. When asked if that would mean that the group would not undertake a common project, the interviewee replied: 'Maybe! I haven't thought about it this way...' In case of irreconcilable ontological differences, the only possible way out, according to Interview 4, is to write separate papers, and then see if it is still possible to integrate the perspectives. However, it can be suspected that such an approach does not contribute to the interdisciplinary nature of a project, unless this final integration modifies the perspectives of the different articles in such a way that it syntheses them meaningfully and not only editorially.

48

6. Discussion, limitations of the current study, and reflection A number of pitfalls had to be avoided while conducting the study. First of all, there is the difficulty in measuring interdisciplinarity, as discussed in the theoretical part. According to Huutoniemi et al. (2010), there exist no generally agreed upon indicators or practical guidelines to measure interdisciplinarity. Evaluation of various forms of IDR, and the analysis of its cognitive content is still problematic. Even though the criteria developed in Chapter 3 were helpful (the conclusion on their basis is made further on), it was problematic to answer such question as 'is the result of integration reducible to the insights from which it emerged'. As Yin (2003) mentions, case study is designed for situations where it is difficult to separate the system from its context. This was true in the current study; it was difficult to separate, for example, issues of purely interdisciplinary matter from more general issues, ontological conflicts from personal. Also, the subject matter - interdisciplinary research processes – is very complex in the sense that researchers operate a lot of background knowledge that is not expressed in the papers, and without having this background knowledge there was a certain risk of misinterpretation of the material they provide. It was difficult to categorise various issues in the case, because epistemological, ontological, theoretical aspects all linked very tightly, and categorisation becomes problematic and superficial. Although the central concepts of the study were carefully operationalised, a lot of important concepts came up which had not been defined a priori (such as ontology and epistemology); definitions of such concepts varied from one informant to another, and from generally accepted definitions. Caution had to be taken when clarifying such definitions with informants. Some important observations have to be made with regard to the case, which might reflect the specifics of analysis of IDR processes. Insights produced by researchers do not always depend on the discipline as much as on the approaches, theories, and underlying ideologies they adhere to. In the tendency to draw a border between 'social' and 'natural' sciences, conflicts within the 'camps' become easily overlooked, and agreements between the 'camps' are not given enough attention. This is a pitfall that needs to be avoided when drawing an analytical line between 'natural' and 'social' sciences, even though this line in the current project was drawn very distinctly by some of the informants themselves. The line, in reality, might lie elsewhere: for example, between 'systems ecologists' and 'political ecologists'. IDR is a complex process in the sense that it is not only 'disciplines' that come into contact; each discipline may within itself contain diverging epistemologies, ideologies and theories; on the other hand, one researcher may operate on a transdisciplinary basis, having combined in her approach perspectives of two or more disciplines. Therefore, there are many levels to IDR as a process of combining insights. So the concept of 'habitus' mentioned earlier, although strong enough to produce conflict, does not necessarily equals 'discipline'. To define it more satisfactorily with regard to IDR would require further research. Ideologies is something that the current study has not addressed, even though one informant (Interview 2) suggested that theories used by researchers are often based on their ideological foundations. Of course, science is supposed to be politically neutral; 49

however, if sustainable development itself is a political agenda, as suggested in the Introduction, perhaps it is reasonable to imagine that what researchers believe in concerning the state of the world affects what theories they employ, and how they use them to explain reality. This suggestion is fully supported by science and technology studies (see Section 2.4.4). The process of the study involved double hermeneutics when it came to the analysis of the interviews: the interpreting of the informants' interpretations of their research process. Therefore, the study does not claim to provide an 'objective' and 'detached' view, but builds on individual experiences. The subjective perspective of the researcher permeates the study in subtle ways; her own disciplinary background has its impact. What is the researcher's own opinions about the fundamental questions that her informants struggled with? Was it easy to take a neutral position? For consideration of reactivity (the interviewer's influence on the informants' answers), it can be useful to analyse the 'power balance' of the current study. The researcher can be regarded in a position of lesser power compared to her informants; both the researcher and the informants belong to an academic community, and the researcher's status as a Master student is lower than those of her informants (minimum PhD candidates). In a way, the relationship can be regarded as sharing of academic capital, or empowerment: those in higher academic positions share their information with someone in a lower position, providing her with an opportunity to improve her position (obtain a Master's degree). Ethically, this situation might be regarded as more beneficial than would be the reverse if informants were in a position of lower status or lesser power. The ethical responsibility of the researcher lies primarily in the correct and honest interpretation of their answers. Honest interpretation means that there should not be an attempt to manipulate the information to support certain conclusions that the researcher would like to draw. Correct interpretation is more complicated; it implies that the ethical responsibility depends on the intellectual and cognitive capacity of the researcher to interpret the informants' answers without losing their initial meaning, and without reducing their inherent complexity. Another consideration important for understanding the results of the study is that even though the interview protocol was carefully designed, it could not always be meticulously followed through. The interviews were semi-structured, which meant that the interviewer allowed researchers to talk freely, and intervened to make sure that the central aspects were covered. The initial protocol design had to be complemented with questions which would allow to clarify certain concepts that previous informants used, confirm their insights or find out different opinions. Often these could not be predicted in advance, but invented ad hoc, relying on the interviewer's intuition. For practical reasons, some interviews lasted longer than others; in one case two informants were interviewed at the same time, which they were comfortable with and which created a new dynamics. The adherence to the interview guidelines allowed to make sure that the central questions were answered; however, it is difficult to say whether such discrepancies in length of interviews did not create discrepancies in the depth of responses.

50

Not all research participants were interviewed; one could not be contacted for practical reasons, and another could not be interviewed due to an extremely busy research schedule. This might have produced a bias of perspectives; however, it was ensured that both 'sides', that of social scientists and adherents of systems ecology and experts on emergy were heard and equally represented, as well as those who found themselves in the middle of the ontological/ epistemological rift and provided a middle-ground perspective. Qualitative research does not aim to produce generalisable results (results of high external validity). As Gallardo (2008, p. 17) puts it, 'this approach may lack generalisation, but it hopefully gains in depth'. Therefore, the conclusions that follow from the current case have to be regarded as insights about what IDR process looked like in a particular situation, and what its participants learnt from it; their advice can be useful for future researchers if they can appropriately adapt it to their own needs.

51

7. Conclusions and recommendations In the current chapter, conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the conducted case study, supported by theoretical insights from the literature review. 7.1. Integration The case study shows an example of partial integration. Some groups within the project achieved methodological integration, others managed to synthesise theories to produce a stronger argument. Certain criteria of integration presented in 3.1 were met, or partially met. The insights generated by researchers were critically evaluated – even though it is impossible to say whether amethodological integrationll of them were shared and considered. It can be argued that common ground between concepts and theories was created, in the sense that researchers understood each other's concepts and perspectives – even though this revealed epistemological and ontological conflicts which could not be resolved. A more comprehensive understanding of the problem (global patterns of consumption and production) was created – even though the group has not so far managed to produce one paper integrating all the cases, theories and methodologies, and make one unified conclusion about the nature of such patterns. The group did achieve methodological and theoretical novelty in combining methods and theories in a new, previously untried ways. The articles produced most probably cannot be evaluated by the criteria of a single discipline, because they are interdisciplinary in terms of their subject (a complex problem), methods, theories and results. It can be said that the understandings of the problem presented in the articles are intellectually coherent and stable, and can be effectively communicated to society, and that they represent potential value to society and scientific community. However, integration had its limitations, because certain conflicts between theories and assumptions could not be reconciled, which prevented integration on the level of the entire project. It proved impossible to make a meaningful conclusion about whether the result of the integration is more than the sum of insights, and whether it can be reduced to comprising insights. Applying a combination of theories to a certain phenomenon provides a strong explanation which could not have been arrived at by using those theories separately; however, it is quite possible to see each theory's contribution to the explanation. In this way, it can be concluded that the expressions 'more than the sum of the insights' or 'irreducible to comprising insights' are not very helpful for analysing integration in the current case study. 7.2. Strategy At the very beginning of the process, the researchers undertook a number of strategic steps. They produced an application for funding, which can be considered a 'policy document' of the research group. This document contained research design, and described the interdisciplinary intention of the project. However, this 'policy' and the specification of research design did not mean that the research process would be smooth, conflict-free, and that all researchers in the group had an equal ownership of the policy and equal interest in working in an interdisciplinary way. 52

The participants claim not to have a coherent strategy of integration; however, we know that a strategy is not only a deliberate plan, but also an emergent pattern of behaviour. It can be noticed that certain elements of strategies were present in the group process:  group learning was attempted at through big meetings and discussions of ontologies; however, it was not successful at the level of the whole group, and had a varied degree of success on the level of subgroups, some of which have reported that their group learning processes were effective and generated tangible outcomes;  negotiation among experts is a good example of behaviour pattern; it was occurring throughout the process, again with varying degree of success; knowledge of theories and methods, as well as new insights derived through their use, were continuously exchanged;  integration by a leader or a group of people has been attempted at different stages, not always successfully, although sometimes strong leadership within a smaller group allowed integration to be fruitful;  reasoning through analogies has led to certain problems, when analogies were drawn between natural and social systems (such as hierarchy, power, selforganisation);  compound concepts, such as system, also proved to be extremely difficult to negotiate;  providing complex explanations was, perhaps, the most successful strategy of the group, and also the most deliberate one, specified at the beginning of the process in the application and in Article 1 and realised, for instance, in Articles 3 and 4. Apart from these general types of strategies, the following steps envisioned in Chapter 3 have been attempted:  specification of applicability of theories was a crucial step which was not undertaken deliberately at the beginning, but had to be addressed towards the end of the research process, leading to a lot of disagreement which has not been fully resolved;  specification of terms was an extremely time-consuming process, which, though successful in itself, led to the discovery of deeper conflicts of epistemology and ontology;  evaluation of assumptions and terminology, attempts to create common ground, identification of conflicts were undertaken;  new understandings of the investigated problem were constructed within subgroups. These elements of strategies were not planned, but rather emergent: the researchers recognised the necessity to take these steps during the process, and sometimes too late for them to be effective. Interviews showed that the researchers regretted that they had not taken a more reflective approach to planning their research, which could have prevented a lot of conflicts. Overall, the conclusion can be made that it is useful to consult the literature on IDR strategies and design a strategy of integration that best suits the need of a project. Some recommendations, based on the lessons the participants took out of the current case, will be presented towards the end of the chapter. 53

7.3. Emergent patterns and the use of emergence as a concept It has been stated that the concept of emergence reflects the non-linear, synergistic and unpredictable aspects of integration as synthesis of disciplinary insights. However, in practice it appears that the concept is too abstract in order to explain the process of integration. As we have seen, researchers had a certain plan, or elements of strategy to carry out their work; however, most elements of the strategy or strategies they used in their groups were emergent in the sense that the participants created them ad hoc faced the necessity to resolve conflicts, write common articles, make meaningful conclusions on the basis of their theories and data. Examples of such emergent patterns of behaviour include:  clustering, both planned and spontaneous, sometimes with collusions of likeminded people;  a rift between natural and social scientists, engendered by differences in ontology, epistemology, status conflict, conflict over the area of expertise and explanatory power and applicability of theories;  inability (until the end of the present study) to write one common article due to inability (or true impossibility) to reconcile ontological differences;  limited ability to compromise when it comes to methodological, theoretical and ontological differences, and the fear of 'losing depth' when compromising ontological and epistemological perspectives;  mutual attempts at appropriation by one discipline of another discipline's perspectives and/or insights to enrich its own explanations, while keeping it a dominant and 'correct' one – in other words, a lack of interdisciplinary balance. And yet, in the present case it was impossible to directly observe emergence in the process of interaction of a group of people. If IDR process should be seen as a 'complex system', as Newell (2001) so strongly urges us to do, it is not clear whether the results of agency (initiatives and decisions) of people may be regarded as an emergent product. To prove that there is emergence, it would be necessary to prove that the final emergent strategies and results of interdisciplinary work are 'more than the sum of their parts', namely, more than the results of the cognitive processes, decisions and initiatives of the individuals in the group. However, methodologically this task is overwhelming, if meaningful at all in the given scope of the study. The process of IDR in the studied case can be schematically represented by Figure 2. However, this diagram is a simplification of the process; it does not reflect the complexity of the process and the connections between components can only be tentatively determined.

54

Fig. 2. An approximate scheme of IDR process on the basis of the case study. Initial strategy implies a research design, which is reflected in the policy documents (application for funding), implies interdisciplinary intention and division into groups. The elements of the initial strategy develop throughout the research process, forming emerging strategies and patterns. These patterns lead to a partial integration of disciplinary insights. On the right side some elements of an external (social) structure of scientific knowledge are shown, which affect the research process.

7.4. Recommendations for IDR on the basis of the case study The following recommendations can be made on the basis of the case study. They include issues raised by the researchers, and those derived from a general analysis of interviews, observations, and articles. 1) A strategy of integration and problem-solving should be adopted by developing a strong policy, documenting the project's aims, approaches, research design including research questions and methods, as well as a 'plan B' for situations in the field where certain methods could not work. 2) It is advisable to create and strictly follow a simple project design, because interdisciplinarity brings a lot of complexity, and it might be difficult to integrate insights and resolve conflicts resulting from too many research questions or cases. 3) The importance of strong leadership should not be underestimated. Leadership must be executed in a way that provides coherence and structure to the project, but at the same time leaves enough space for initiative and creativity. The main function of leadership is to resolve conflicts and ensure adherence to the project policy. 4) Another important function of leadership is to ensure ownership, participation, motivation and interest of all participants in interdisciplinary work. 5) Invest time and planning in team-building and social relationships. This is a good advice in any group activity, but specifically important for IDR, because it 55

takes more time than disciplinary teamwork due to unpredictability of IDR processes and results and a high potential for conflict of assumptions. 6) Work intensively together for short periods, rather than stretch collaboration over time. This helps creativity, commitment, and helps to create interdisciplinary synthesis rather than multidisciplinary analysis. 7) In the early stage of the process, clarify: concepts and what they imply; theoretical frameworks, applicability and explanatory power of theories; ontological and epistemological assumptions and the connection between the two; what should be considered good research, and appropriate research culture. If these discussions create conflict, it might be easier to find ways of dealing with it at early stages than when a large part of research is completed, and the project participants find it impossible to integrate the results due to conflicts between assumptions. 8) Finally, the ability to accept others' perspectives and to compromise without losing what one's disciplinary perspective has to offer is a diplomatic skill which is hard to develop, but should not be neglected, and should be made part of research culture from the early stages. These recommendations are presented in Figure 3.

Fig. 3. Recommendations for IDR These recommendations concern strategy for integration and conditions for the emergence of integrated insights. The recommendations are derived on the basis of the case study.

7.5. Conclusions for theory of IDR and the suggestions for future studies Most discoveries in the process of case study confirmed predictions of theories drawn out in Chapter 2. As predicted by the theory of cognitive interdisciplinarity, creating common ground was an important step on the way to integration, and it allowed to realise that the same concepts can be understood in different ways. As suggested by situated cognition theories, negotiation was happening in some groups, and certain perspectives acquired a higher status than others, which caused mistrust and conflict. According to the theories of groups as information processors and distributed cognition theories, sharing of information was crucial, and a deeper understanding of the problem emerged as a result of such sharing and communication, of collective use and 'juggling' of insights within groups.

56

However, it has been shown that conflict in language ('we mean different things by the same term') in IDR masks conflicts in ontology ('we have different views about the nature of the world') and epistemology ('we believe in different ways of obtaining knowledge about the world'). It can be proposed that conflict in IDR can be a separate subject for exploration, because it can shed light to a whole variety of important questions about the nature and the process of IDR. In the current case, conceptual differences mask ontological conflicts which cannot be reconciled, and which lead to partial integration of scientific insights. As theories of IDR borrowed from sociology predict, status, culture and practice played a major role in the process, even though more implicit. Negotiation of identity, differences in writing practices, the necessity (and often failure) to 'deconstruct and resynthesise' were crucial to IDR. It can be claimed that disciplines as social practices and constructs played a coercive role in the behaviour of individuals, although this role is not obvious and straightforward. An important part of the research process is taken by conflict. It was insightful to find out that conflict is a clearly emergent element (no-one plans conflict!), which had an enormous influence on how time and creative energies were spent. However, conflict is not a negative thing in itself; if approached correctly, it is critical for the creative potential of the group, and for generating scientific novelty. Although conflict was analysed in the current study extensively, no conclusions have been made about possibilities of 'leveraging' conflict to create such novelty. The critique of interdisciplinarity as a research process that risks reducing the depth of disciplinary analysis showed up in some of the participants' perceptions about the necessity to compromise; however, it was impossible to judge on the basis of the study whether such 'shallowness' was a fact of research results. A problem with interdisciplinarity, it seems, is that there is no counter-factual; it is difficult to imagine what the research process and results would have been if they were disciplinary, or multi-disciplinary. Overall, the study of IDR has important implications for philosophy of science and sociology of scientific knowledge. It cuts across many questions that these fields are concerned with, including ontologies and epistemologies of various disciplines, the divide between scientific cultures of natural and social sciences and the humanities, the questions of power, culture, status in scientific collaborations.

57

References Aboelela, S. W. et al. (2006). Defining Interdisciplinary Research : Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), 329–346. Agenda 21 (1992). In Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. 1), Annex II. Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B. (1987). From reduction to linkage: The long view of the micro-macro link. In: Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B., Münch, R., Smelser, N.J. (eds) The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 1-44. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. New York: AltaMira Press. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Introduction. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke, (Eds.) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Birmbaum, P. H. & Gillespie, D. F. (1980). Status Concordance, Coordination, and Success in Interdisciplinary Research Terms. Human Relations, 33(1), 41–56. Boix Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2003). Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier : An Empirical Exploration of “ Symptoms of Quality .” Interdisciplinary Studies Project Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1–13. Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K.L., Keyton, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W., Uzzi, B. (2010) A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science of Translational Medicine, 2 (45), 1-14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity. Bromme, R. (2000) Beyond one's own perspective: the psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In: Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Pp. 115133. Buanes, A., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Building bridges : Institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures, 41, 446–454. Campbell, L. M. (2005). Diversity: Overcoming Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research. Conservation Biology, 19 (2), 574–577. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, C. A. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others. New York: Routledge. Derry, S. J., DuRussel, L. A., & O'Donnell, A. M. (1997). Individual and Distributed Cognitions in Interdisciplinary Teamwork : A Developing Case Study and Emerging Theory. (Research Monograph No. 7). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. DuRussel, L. A. & Derry, S. J. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to analyzing cognitive development in interdisciplinary teams. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 529-533. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Academic Edition [online]. Available from http://www.britannica.com [accessed 7 November 2012]. Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as Teamwork: How the Science of Teams Can Inform Team Science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251–277. Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. 58

London: Routledge. Gallardo Fernandéz, G. L. (2008). From Seascapes of Extinction to Seascapes of Confidence. Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries in Chile: El Quisco and Puerto Oscuro. Co-Action Publishing. Cambrian Printers Ltd, Aberystwyth, Wales. (Available online at www.co-action.net/books/Gallardo) Garland, D. R. et al. (2006). Team-based Research: Notes from the Field. Qualitative Social Work, 5(1), 93–109. Gibb, R. (2007). Reactivity. In: Paul Lavrakas, Allyson Holbrook, Edith de Leeu, and Peter Miller. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Giddens, A. (1993). Problems of Action and Structure. In: P. Cassell (ed.) The Giddens Reader. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pp. 88–175. Goldman, M. J., Nadasdy, P. & Turner, M.D. (2011). Knowing Nature: Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press. Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and Issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 1 (1), pp. 49–72. Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Taylor, B. K., Moser, R. P., & Stokols, D. (2008). Moving the Science of Team Science Forward: Collaboration and Creativity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S243–S249. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. Hayek, F. (1952). The counter-revolution of science: studies on the abuse of reason. Glencoe, Illinois, Free Press. Heberlein, T. (1988). Improving interdisciplinary research: Integrating the social and natural sciences. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 5–16. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., and Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39, 79–88. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Klein, J.T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2 Suppl), 116–123. Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Lam, J. C., Walker, R. M., & Hills, P. (2011). Interdisciplinarity in Sustainability Studies: A Review. Sustainable Development. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press. 59

Lattuca, L.R. (2001). Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty. Vanderbilt University Press. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In: L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63-84). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge. Lingard, L. et al. (2007). Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team. Qualitative Research, 7(4), 501–519. Maasen, S. (2000). Inducing interdisciplinarity: irresistible infliction? The example of a research group at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany. In: Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Pp. 173-193. Mackey, J. L. (2002). Rules Are Not the Way to Do Interdisciplinarity : A Response to Szostak. Issues in Integrative Studies, 20, 123–129. Mandelbaum, M. (1955). Social Facts. British Journal of Sociology, 6, 309-317. Mâsse, L. C., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B. K., Marcus, S. E., Morgan, G. D., Hall, K. L., et al. (2008). Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2 Suppl), S151–60. McCallin, A. (2004). Pluralistic dialoguing: A theory of interdisciplinary teamworking. The Grounded Theory Review, 4 (1), 25-42. McNeill, D. (1999). On interdisciplinary research : with particular reference to the field of environment and development. Higher education quarterly, 53(4), 312–332. Miller, M., & Boix Mansilla, V. (2004). Thinking across perspectives and disciplines. Good Work Project Report Series, no. 27. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero. Miller, R. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences. Issues in Integrative Studies, 1, 1–37. Mintzberg, H. (1998). Five Ps for Strategy. In H. Mintzberg, J. B. Quinn, & S. Ghoshal (Eds.), The Strategy Process (pp. 13–21). Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. (2007). Tracking Strategies: Toward a general theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morgan, G., Kobus, K., Gerlach, K.K., et al. (2003). Facilitating transdisciplinary research: the experience of the transdisciplinary tobacco use research centers. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 5(1S), S11–S19 Mu, S., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2003). Developing Synergistic Knowledge in Student Groups. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(6), 689–711. Münch, R. and Smelser, N.J. (1987). Relating the micro and macro. In: Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B., Münch, R., Smelser, N.J. (eds) The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 356-387. Murphy, B. L. (2011). From interdisciplinary to inter-epistemological approaches : Confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. The Canadian Geographer, 55(4), 490–509. Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: St Martin's Press. Nash, J. M. (2008). Transdisciplinary training: key components and prerequisites for success. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S133-40. 60

National Cancer Institute (2006). Proceedings of the NCI–NIH Conference on The Science of TeamScience: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research; Bethesda MD. Oct 30–31 [Online]. Available from: videocast.nih.gov/ Summary.asp?File=13474; videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=13471 [accessed 5 November 2012] Newell, W. H. (1990). Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development. Issues in Integrative Studies, 8, 69–86. Newell, W.H. (2001). A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, pp.1–25. Nissani, M. (1997). Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. The Social Science Journal, 34(2), 201–216. O'Donnell, A. M., DuRussel, L. A., & Derry, S. J. (1997). Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary groups. (Research Monograph No. 5). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Oxford Dictionary [online]. Available from http://oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/ american_english/ emergence [Accessed 2 October]. Petts, J., Owens, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing boundaries : Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39, 593–601. Pickering, A. (1992). Science as Practice and Culture (Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Pickett, S. T. A., Burch, W. R., & Grove, J. M. (1999). Interdisciplinary the Constructive Maintaining a Culture in of Criticism Impulse. Ecosystems, 2(4), 302–307. Popper, K. (1958). The open society and its enemies. London, Routledge. Popper, K. (1961). The poverty of Historicism. London, Routledge. Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary ? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719– 745. Porter, A. L., & Rossini, F. A. (1985). Forty interdisciplinary research projects: Multiple skills and peer review. In B. W. Mar, W. T. Newell, & B. O. Saxberg, eds., Managing high technology: An interdisciplinary perspective, 103–112. New York: North-Holland. Quinn, J. B. (1998). Strategies for Change. In H. Mintzberg, J. B. Quinn, & S. Ghoshal (Eds.), The Strategy Process (pp. 5–13). Prentice Hall. Repko, A. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. London: SAGE. Rossini, F.A., & Porter, A.L. (1979). Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research. Research Policy, 8(1), 70–79. Rossini, F.A. & Porter, A.L. (1984). Interdisciplinary research: Performance and policy Issues. In R. Jurkovich & J. H. P. Paelinck, eds., Problems in interdisciplinary studies. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Company. Pp. 26–45. Sawyer, R. K. (2005) Social Emergence: Societies as Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, G. (November, 1996). Interdisciplinary distribution of cognitions: Much ado about something, (Keynote address for NISE symposium entitled “Understanding Interdisciplinary Teamwork: Challenges for Research and Practice”). Madison: 61

University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226–251. Schoolman, E. D., Guest, J. S., Bush, K. F., & Bell, A. R. (2012). How interdisciplinary is sustainability research ? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability Science, 7, 67–80. Shen B. (2008). Toward cross-sectoral team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S240 –2. Smith, J. B. (1994). Collective intelligence in computer-based collaboration. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy [online]. Available from http://plato. stanford. edu. [Accessed 7 November 2012]. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects : Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. Stokols, D., Harvey, R., Gress, J., Fuqua, J., Phillips, K. (2005). In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration: lessons learned and implications for active living research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 202–13. Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S77–89. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2 Suppl), S96–115. Szostak, R. (2002). How to do interdisciplinarity: Integrating the debate. Issues in Integrative Studies, 20, 103–122. Tainter, J. A. (2006). Social complexity and sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3(2), 91–103. The National Academies (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Wagner, C. S., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26. Weingart, P. (2000) Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In: Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Pp. 25-42. Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (2000). Introduction. In: Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.) Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. Pp. xi-xvi. Welch, J. (2007). The Role of Intuition In Interdisciplinary Insight. Issues in Integrative Studies, 25, 131–155. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 62

Appendix 1. Interview guidelines Clarify ethical issues  Say what the study is about and how it will be used (Master's thesis).  Confidential: will not mention their name, but might mention disciplinary background. Receive consent.  Ask for permission to use of recorder.  Say that the focus is their own experience. Questions Section 1: Personal background 1. Confirm his/her disciplinary background. 2. What was your own interest in the project, what was the question you were most interested in? Section 2: Strategy and interdisciplinary intention 3. Why did you decide to have an interdisciplinary project? 4. How many disciplines are represented in your team? 5. Did you think from the beginning about how you will synthesise the results? 6. Did you have a strategy to pursue research? If yes, how did it look? Did you follow it? Did you realise it, change it a lot, or completely abandoned? 7. If not, how did you coordinate your actions? Did you establish any routines of discussion and exchange? How was this organised? 8. How much time did you spend as a group, discussing your research? What exactly did you discuss? What was the result of these discussions? 9. Did you consider all the insights that your group members suggested? How did you take decisions to either reject or incorporate them? 10. Did you establish any routine of teamwork and team-building? 11. Did you discuss and compare: concepts, theories, epistemologies, ontologies and methods of different disciplines? 12. Did you manage to develop a common ground or a common language? Section 3: Emergence 13. Did you enconter problems? Of what kinds? 14. Did you refer to your own disciplinary background (or did others do so) in the process of discussion? 15. Were there moments when new knowledge, or methods, or concepts emerged as you were working together? Section 4: Integration 16. What was the final product of the research process (an article, a theory, a method, etc.)? 17. Did you arrive at a new knowledge or understanding of your research problem? How did it happen? 18. Is this result/ understanding new, original? 19. Did you manage to synthesise all the disciplinary insights, methods, theories? 20. Did you manage to resolve all conflicts between insights, theories, perspectives? 21. Can you from the perspective of your discipline evaluate this result/ understanding, or is it larger than what your discipline can evaluate? Section 5: Recommendations 22. What would you have done differently if you were to go through this process again? 63

Suggest Documents