NanoInfoBio: A case-study in interdisciplinary research
NNanoInfoBio: A case-study in interdisciplinary research Naomi Jacobs and Martyn AmosManchester Metropolitan UniversityCorresponding author: [email protected] Introduction
The complex challenges facing 21st century society will require solutions that transcend disciplinary boundaries (National Academies, 2004). The convergence of informatics, engineering and biotechnology is widely predicted to lie at the heart of the next technological revolution (Carlson, 2008). Interdisciplinary science and technology has the potential to fundamentally transform healthcare, agriculture, energy, security, environmental science and many other areas of pressing concern (Endy, 2005; May, 2009).Through reconciliation of knowledge across different disciplines, new and innovative forms of research may be stimulated both across and within disciplines (Frost and Jean, 2003, Wilson, 1998, cited in Rhoten, 2004). By encouraging interaction and exchange, the effective creation of new knowledge occurs via the ‘cross-fertilisation of fields’ (Crane, 1972 cited in Sanz-Menendez et al., 2001). ‘Breakthrough’ research is more likely to result from combining specialists and ideas from different areas (Carayol and Nguyen Thi, 2004). There may also be financial incentives for undertaking joint research, as novel funding pathways are becoming increasingly available to support such projects. (Cech and Rubin, 2004; Rhoten, 2004; Tadmor and Tidor, 2005). It has long been recognised that traditional disciplinary boundaries can be limiting, and that these lines of demarcation often create artificial barriers that restrict the type of questions that can be asked (Frost and Jean, 2003). Staying within established boundaries fosters the development of unique worldviews, perceptions, and ways of framing knowledge (Kincheloe, 2001), which are all valuable and necessary. However, communication with those outside the
Applied Research and Professional Edu-cation , p.p. 289-309. Turku University of Applied Sciences (2012). http://julkaisut.turkuamk.fi/isbn9789522162519.pdf roup may become more difficult as a result. Individual researchers may seek to undertake interdisciplinary research (IDR) in order to overcome such limitations (Rhoten, 2004). The complexities of interdisciplinarity, however, are still poorly understood. Whilst IDR appears to have clear benefits, its implementation can offer significant challenges (Kafatos, 1998).Attention has recently focused on overcoming these challenges, and notable successes include the creation of new interdisciplinary courses, research centres and programmes (Eagan et al., 2002; Aboelela et al., 2007), as well as new policies and funding structures at institutional, national and international levels. In what follows we use an established categorisation of impediments to examine different types of barrier and then illustrate how they have been addressed in the context of an existing research project.
2. Case study: the NanoInfoBio project
The NanoInfoBio (NIB) project at Manchester Metropolitan University was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) for a period of 27 months, under their Bridging the Gaps programme. This programme aims to foster interdisciplinary research within UK higher education institutions by means of innovative and flexible research support. The NIB project brought together computer scientists, biologists, engineers, chemists, mathematicians and health scientists to work on problems as diverse as the fungal deterioration of film stock, wound repair using nanoparticles, and visual tracking of muscle contraction.The specific objectives of NIB were as follows:· Encourage serendipity: encourage “happy accidents”.· "Grow our own" researchers: create a sustainable research environment by developing students as researchers.· Minimise barriers: remove impediments to effective inter-disciplinary work. hese have been achieved using a variety of methodologies, including seed-corn funding, support for interdisciplinary activities, and a number of initiatives designed to encourage a cultural shift towards more collaborative working across the Faculty of Science and Engineering. We now focus on how the third objective (Minimise barriers) was achieved.Siedlok and Hibbert (2009) list a variety of factors that can contribute to the failure of IDR, grouped into four categories: (1) Disciplinary (e.g. cultural barriers) (2) Personal (e.g. lack of experience, time constraints) (3) Institutional (e.g. funding schemes, career constraints, authorship/patenting issues) (4) Procedural (e.g. lack of access to evaluation tools). NIB took a strategic approach to overcoming barriers to IDR. We now examine each of the categories listed above, propose ways in which they might be overcome, and then describe the implementation of these methods in the context of the NIB project.2. Disciplinary barriers
4. Personal barriers . Institutional barriers
6. Procedural barriers . Conclusions
In this paper we have emphasised the future importance of interdisciplinary research, and outlined some of the challenges to its effective implementation within universities. By describing ways in which a funded project has addressed these barriers, we hope to offer to the community tangible and useful examples of good practice, and contribute to a wider debate on the implementation of cross-disciplinary science and engineering.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Bridging the Gaps programme (Grant reference EP/H000291/1).
References
Aboelela, S., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo., O., Formicola., A., Glied, S., Haas, J. and Gebbie, K. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. HSR: Health Services Research 42, 329–346.Amabile, T.M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P.W., Marsh, M. and Kramer, S.J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. The Academy of Management Journal 44, 418–431.Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., and Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary Integration in Europe: The case of the Fifth Framework Programme. Futures 36, 457–470.Carayol, N. and Nguyen Thi, T.U. (2004). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Research Evaluation 14, 70–79.arlson, R. (2007). Laying the foundations for a bio-economy. Systems and Synthetic Biology 1:3, 109–17.Cech, T.R., Rubin, G.M. (2004). Nurturing interdisciplinary research. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 11:12, 1166–1169.Eagan, P., Cook, T. and Joeres, E. (2002). Teaching the importance of culture and interdisciplinary education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3, 48–66.Endy, D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology, Nature 438:7067, 449–53.European Union Research Advisory Board. (2004). Interdisciplinary research (Downloaded on 16 th December 2010 at http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_04_009_interdisciplinarity_research_final.pdf ).Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R. and West, M. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology 79, 553–567.Frost, S. and Jean, P. (2003). Bridging the disciplines. Interdisciplinary discourse and faculty scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education 74, 119–149.Golde, C. and Alix Gallagher, H. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditional doctoral programs. Ecosystems 2, 281–285.Gooch, J. (2005). The dynamics and challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration: A case study of “cortical depth of bench” in group proposal writing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48, 117–190.Goodman S.R., Ciechanover A.J., Hulse R.A., Feng da, H., and Fluckiger, S. (2006). Nobel round-table discussion thth