Collaboration and Cross-disciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Research by Jaime Thissen

Note: Readings cited pertain to Week 2 which are Jeffery, MacCleave and LeLe and Norgaard.

My experience in working with research on this project has thus far been productive and efficient. My research family (Kathryn S, Lakiah and Vanessa) and I have been working together consistently on this project for over a week and things are running quite smoothly from my point of view. There are always challenges and rewards, as the syllabus questions note, about group experience.

I will point out that while the readings attempt to follow a logical flow, it is not as clear cut in practice as they seem to indicate. MacCleave’s conversation scenario goes from misunderstandings and stereotypes to a dialogue about understanding and then resolution. Her section on “supporting transformations” is arguably the most important part of her paper because it describes the fairly universal and common sense approach to “expecting and embracing differences”.

For the sports fans out there, an appropriate comparison would be that while team X looks good on paper, there are any number of things team Y as the underdog can do to buck the conventional wisdom. So it’s really not possible to account for every scenario, but all of the readings at least get that ball rolling. Jeffery seems to support this assertion by noting that it’s “more important to develop and continue experience as opposed to knowledge”.

In our particular case, three of us (myself, Lakiah and Kathryn) have more or less similar background in the area of natural science. Vanessa has a more mathematical background. Just because we have similar backgrounds does not mean that we fit together like a puzzle; there are more variables that frankly the readings did not consider and should not be expected to. LeLe and Norgaard specify that “while collaboration between disciplines within the natural sciences is easiest, it is not painless.” This is not to insinuate that there is not professionalism between group members, but to illustrate that a person cannot read a study on interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary or transdisciplinary research and expect to have a closed formula for what might happen.

We may not always agree on every little detail, and I suspect this is true of other SPI groups as well, but we all address concerns in a professional manner. Like anything else, the best way to be a professional is to practice and get experience from opportunities to learn about professionalism. Come to think of it, I was somewhat surprised that the readings did not touch on this aspect of collaboration, which is necessary even without cross-disciplinary, transdisciplinary or interdisciplinary research.

This is significant because the literature describes scenarios where the group gets their funding from a grant. As such, ideas and writings are going to be examined more carefully than they would on a classroom assignment that is not graded. My experience with the “peer review” process goes all the way back to high school, and I think a lot of times students will hold back on criticism. Even in professional circles, I would imagine that feedback is more constructive than the blunt nature of the conversation in MacCleave’s scenario. This actually does not prepare students well enough for higher academia or a job.

As Dan and Ivory pointed in this week’s combined workshop, which is how things flow in academia. When I was interning in Washington, DC, I wrote a memorandum on tsunamis that I was quite good but when I submitted to the director of my agency for review, she had a lot of revisions.

A professor once said to a class I was in that sometimes his research group will revise a paper over 1,000 times! He also noted that it is really important for groups to mesh their ideas and not just split up the work and then compile the sections together without transition. He noted that “it would definitely show in your final product when read by someone else”. I think he was saying that it was more noticeable that the writer might think.

Our abstract is quite clear about what we intend to investigate and incorporates all of our ideas well. Of course, I look forward to the feedback from SPI staff. My research group is focused on reviewing case studies of sustainability and agroforestry. Our work is important because a lot of studies either omit key components of sustainability or do not weight them properly. Some do not even detail a temporal projection or outcome.

Individually, I estimate there are more parallels than there are points of departure with our individual focuses. The natural sciences do admittedly have more flexibility and already touch on other disciplines, so this is an advantage in interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary research. In fact, I recall reading about trans-disciplinary perspectives in a sustainability publication eleven years ago. Each of us has a valuable contribution to the main topic.

Vanessa’s mathematical background will add qualitative weight to our study, Lakiah’s emphasis on education and communication will be valuable in terms of how we communicate to stakeholders and decision-makers. Kathryn’s contribution will be focused on methodology of natural sciences. My background in international development, sustainability and combining knowledge of different fields will perhaps my leading asset for this group project.

To conclude, the process has been both rewarding and challenging. It’s been challenging because as I noted earlier, there is no study or conceptual framework on paper that can prepare you for all the variables. At the same time, the experience is rewarding because collaboration in this manner not only brings in other perspectives but acts as a de facto sort of peer review.