English 820 Blog Post 1

Morse, Wayde Cameron, Max Nielsen-Pincus, Jo Ellen Force, and J.D. Wulfhorst. “Bridges and Barriers to Developing and Conducting Interdisciplinary Graduate-Student Team Research.”  Ecology and Society 12.2 (2007). Web. 20 January 2011.

Success in professional and research environments often requires interdisciplinary work between individuals from two or more disciplines.  This is due to the need for a large knowledge bank, varied perspectives, and different problem solving strategies to address current complex issues.  Morse et al. argue that interdisciplinary research training is essential at the graduate level to ensure the professional success of students.  In addition, this can be achieved in the academic setting by exploiting identified bridges and barriers to collaborative research.  

Following the receipt of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) award, Morse et al. designed an interdisciplinary research program for graduate students in the field of biodiversity and sustainability.  Approximately eighteen students entered from the Colleges of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Life Sciences, or Environmental Science.  Students were broken into five person groups with each college represented.  They were then required to jointly define research questions, create experimental designs integrating theory and practical problem solving, carry out the research, and finally co-author a paper.  Morse et al. used this program as a case study.  The authors conducted a three-day workshop with faculty and students designed to gather data identifying factors that help and hinder interdisciplinary research.

Morse et al. observed a variety of bridges and barriers to interdisciplinary research at the individual, discipline, and programmatic levels.  Specific factors that helped collaborative work included individual vision and dedication, common language, and programmatic flexibility.  Barriers included decreased communication and conflict resolution, differences in methodologies, and insufficient programmatic funding for interdisciplinary work.  Morse et al. suggested nine ways to exploit or address these barriers, resulting in enhanced collaborative success.  Examples included the establishment of individual accountability, introduction of multiple communication strategies, joint definition of research aims and methodologies, and enhancement of interdisciplinary training. 

The authors went on to provide general conclusions regarding the nature of interdisciplinary work.  First, Morse et al. noted that the disciplinary demands on students were still vast, thus making it difficult to find the time for interdisciplinary training.  Therefore, programmatic shifts must occur for the success of this training.  Second, one should define the level of integration necessary for the success of a project, allowing the team to either tackle or avoid collaborative challenges.  Finally, continued planning and documentation of the collaborative effort will help identify bridges and barriers, making the research process more effective.

Morse et al. provide a broad review and clearly articulate numerous factors that help and hinder collaborative research.  Although the paper is focused on biological research, the theories and suggestions provided pertain to all disciplines and professional titles.  This manuscript is useful to anyone attempting to design or improve a collaborative team and project.  However, if a reader requires a more in-depth analysis of a specific collaborative barrier, additional literature should be reviewed.