A disciplinary domain generally can be described by two related characteristics: 1) the objects and systems examined and, 2) the behaviors, features and problems associated with these objects and systems. For example, the domain of hydrodynamics can be broadly described as the study of water and other fluids and their motion or action.
Individuals identify with several levels of domains. For example, a hydrodynamicist may consider himself simultaneously to be a hydraulic engineer, a civil engineer, and an engineer. In this case, the domain of the first discipline falls within the domain of the third. In this discussion the term disciplinary domain generally will refer to the more specialized domain which, in the above example, would be hydraulic engineering.
Individuals tend to limit their significant disciplinary activities, particularly research, to those disciplinary sub-domains where their contributions will be most accepted and recognized. Individuals usually identify their sub-domain through their own personal research rather than through their broader formal education. Activities within sub-domains generally involve a narrow range of "acceptable" problems, rapid exchanges of research findings, personal contact among established members, intensive criticism of "non-rigorous" work, and a clear identification of "experts (2)." A driving ambition of researchers is to become a recognized expert within their chosen sub-domain.
A disciplinary community possesses a constellation of concepts, procedures, models, examples and experiences which are useful within the disciplinary domains. Such a constellation and the attitudes, ambitions and mental frameworks consistent with it are termed herein the paradigms of a disciplinary community (3, 4). The paradigms may be considered as epistemological and methodological tools of a disciplinary community. The domain and the accepted paradigms identify each disciplinary community; the commitment to this identity dominates many of the disciplinary activities of scientists and engineers.
The current domains and paradigms of disciplines reflect their evolutionary history (5). As a result, disciplines which currently have overlapping domains often employ significantly different paradigms. For example, aquatic ecologists and environmental engineers both study chemical, physical and biological processes in aquatic environments and increasingly interface their results. A frequent complaint heard, however, is the "We can't talk with those (engineers or biologists)!", which is a manifestation of paradigm differences. The historical development of aquatic ecology generally has occurred through biological sciences, while that of environmental engineering through applied physical sciences. Terms such as succession and evolution are foreign to engineering paradigms, while terms such as free body diagram, benefit-cost and safety factor are not common to biological science paradigms. Thus, overlapping domains do not necessarily mean paradigm similarity.
Disciplinary paradigms are inculcated within community members through repeated exposure and practice during their formal education and professional practice. The repetitive solution of "typical" problems common in science and engineering education serves to establish disciplinary paradigms to students. Students quickly learn that mastery of the community's paradigms receives more recognition than other educational accomplishments such as creativity or personal expression. These students determine that the solution of assigned problems is more often found in example problems than through their own creative imagination. As a consequence, student attitudes can evolve such that tests which depart substantially from the assigned and example problems are judged unfair (6).
Such students' attitudes honestly reflect their experiences that education is directed primarily toward the inculcation of disciplinary paradigms. Professional societies, disciplinary journals and conferences, institutional isolation of disciplines (7), and, in some cases, legally required certification tend to protect the integrity of a disciplinary community and its paradigms.
Paradigms serve an important function to a disciplinary community by providing guides and patterns for community activities. "Reasonable" or "acceptable" problems are identified as ones which can be addressed through use of established paradigms. "Reasonable" or "acceptable" approaches to problem-solving follow the patterns of the paradigms. "Reasonable" or "acceptable" explanations and observations are compatible with the paradigms. Thus, paradigms of a scientific or engineering community act as filters for selection and evaluation of "appropriate" problems, approaches, explanations and observations. Without them, disciplinary rigor, stability and orderly progress could not be maintained.
The disciplinary community provides recognition and acceptance for its members; as such, individuals establish much of their personal identity with this recognition and acceptance. The community demands, in turn, that individuals' research contributions be publicly observable and reproducible, which in most cases implies compatibility with the established paradigms.
Significant departures from the accepted paradigms invites the possibility of rejection or non-acceptance. As a result, most individuals will limit their research activities to sub-domains where they can work safely within the established paradigms. Such research usually involves the application of established paradigms to problems of current interest with a subsequent refinement and gradual evolution of these paradigms.
Individuals become deeply committed to their disciplinary paradigms because paradigms effectively perform two functions which provide professional and personal identity. First, they provide established patterns or guidelines for "correct" and "expert" approaches to approved problems. Second, they provide means for recognition and acceptance. The strong agreement within the community on what constitutes "appropriate" behavior and the consistency of providing recognition and acceptance for such "appropriate" behavior distinguish scientific and engineering communities from most communities within modern societies (5).
In summary, disciplinary paradigms are necessary for disciplinary rigor, stability and orderly progress; they provide an effective and useful, but often limited, framework for the selection and solution of problems. However, since they offer both the pathway to and means of recognition for successful problem solution, many individuals become deeply committed to their use as the only framework. For many, such commitment becomes so strong, the images provided by the paradigms are considered reality itself. Some individuals, often the most strongly committed, believe that paradigms do not exist; there is only the right way to approach a problem which, of course, is their way.
Traditional disciplines are usually defined by a broad description of their domains; such definitions limit the perspective of normal disciplinary concern. Following the previous example, hydrodynamics normally is not concerned with water chemistry or aquatic organisms, even though both involve the study of water. Thus, the established domain of a discipline, in general, limits the perspective of problems that its members judge as "appropriate" to study. A traditional discipline will encompass a portion of the detail-perspective spectrum. The domain will be closed in the higher-perspective direction, but open in the higher-detail direction. Increased detail will almost always fall within the discipline domain; however, expanded perspective can exceed the defining domain. As a result, the outlook of a discipline will tend to be toward higher-detailed views and the disciplinary paradigms will reflect this outlook. Movement in the higher-detail direction will, however, be limited by the usefulness of the paradigms. For example, the study of turbulence falls within the region where the paradigms of classical hydrodynamics depart and new paradigms emerge (e.g., statistical mechanics).
The domains of disciplines are not static but rather evolve, often in response to societal demands. Such evolution can lead to an overlapping of disciplinary domains. Controversy and conflict may result from paradigm differences, yet such conflicts can lead to creative and innovative changes if individuals do not retreat too quickly to their safe sub-domains. Paradigms of involved disciplines may be expanded and altered or new disciplines may evolve; thus, contact between disciplines provides a means of introducing challenges to disciplinary creativity and initiative (8,9).
Interdisciplinary research is a directed effort toward such interdisciplinary contact; however, its potential is more than a challenge to disciplinary initiative. Understandings of systems and problems may occur which are more than a collection of disciplinary results. Socio-ecological systems need to be examined from a broad region of the perspective-detail spectrum. Such wide spectrum views are important because systems exhibit properties, activities and responses which are not only dependent upon the component parts, but also are dependent upon the organization of these parts and the role of such organization within higher level systems. Both perspective and detail are needed to improve understandings of socio-ecological systems and an urgency exists for such understanding due to the expansive scope of mankind's activities.
In most cases, effective interdisciplinary research requires that participating individuals expand their vantage points towards the higher-perspective region of the spectrum. Such expanded views do not imply a rejection of detailed disciplinary views. On the contrary, good disciplinary work often is needed to complement and form these higher-perspective views. Dialogue between participants operating at higher-perspective region will be difficult due to paradigm differences. Such differences, however, are not the exclusive basis of difficulties and conflicts. More personal and psychological bases exist which, although significant, are often not identified.
Significant conflicts are experienced by an individual whose concerns extend toward higher-perspective views. First, he will extend beyond his comfortable disciplinary sub-domain which through professional specialization has probably molded his views towards high detail. Second, the pursuit of higher-perspective studies invites colleague criticism for being "non-rigorous" (lack of detail). Third, the individual working beyond his disciplinary domain risks separation from his support community. Thus, the individual is subjected to little reassurance for his present work and may not receive recognition for success. Fourth, the individual may discover that his paradigms lose their usefulness and applicability in the expanded domain.
An individual outside his disciplinary domain immediately comes in conflict with individuals with greater detailed expertise in various limited subject areas which he has trespassed. In addition, the conscientious individual may be overwhelmed by the scope of available opportunities at the broader perspective and may be unable to meet his personal standards of excellence acquired within his disciplinary sub-domain. Such standards typically stress high detail and precision.
These personal and psychological conflicts can be severe and dominating. Their existence is rarely admitted, even by the individual himself due to social and professional taboos on how one pursues and receives recognition. Consequently, individuals tend to drift back to the safety of their disciplinary sub-domains after attempting professional work in high-perspective regions rather than dealing with the conflict. This drift back is a critical difficulty which must be addressed throughout the life of any interdisciplinary project.
Large interdisciplinary projects typically start with much enthusiasm and some commitment of the members toward the desirability of such research. As the project proceeds, however, numerous unanticipated problems appear and the work proceeds at slower and less measurable rates than expected. Co-investigators are asked to undertake studies out of their sub-domains; such studies are deemed necessary to complete "the broad picture." The ownership of research results become more difficult to agree upon without territorial markers of the interdisciplinary sub-domains. Enthusiasm declines. Graduate students and technicians appear unable to grasp broad perspective problems and require more supervision. Budgets are consumed in the pursuit of many "blind alleys." Pressure to get "practical data" increases. The data that are obtained do not mesh with other members' results. Publications may get rejected because of "non-rigor." The lack of "measurable success" begins to provide justification for the criticisms obtained by moving outside the disciplinary domains. Without a firm commitment to the necessity of interdisciplinary research, most individuals cannot resist the temptation to return to their sub-domains. They historically review their lives and conclude that research was "simpler," "less of a hassle," and "more gratifying" within their sub-domains. Under such conflicts, individuals tend to give only a token effort to the interdisciplinary efforts and primarily concentrate on their disciplinary studies. A typical scenario is that the principal interdisciplinary interaction occurs at report-writing time when each co-investigator writes a separate chapter.
Individuals who are not willing to extend their commitments beyond their disciplinary domains and sub-domains can be detrimental to interdisciplinary research unless they are willing to accept direction from the other group members as to which high-detail problems fit into the high-perspective views. Experienced researchers who have been highly successful within their own sub-domains are often among the most reluctant to accept such commitments to higher-perspective views. Unfortunately, such individuals are often considered as important assets for successful funding of interdisciplinary research.
An additional danger exists that individuals who expand their domains fail to consider the limitations of their basic paradigms within the expanded domains. For example, engineers may attempt to determine social and ecological impacts of projects by employing general paradigms appropriate to mechanics. The success of paradigms within one domain does not assure a similar success of them within an expanded domain. Such transferred paradigms may serve to filter out the most relevant features of the expanded domain (10).
Interdisciplinary research must be approached with the attitude that not only may paradigms be significantly different, but that such differences are desirable. The usefulness of disciplinary paradigms should not be minimized; however, their limitations must be recognized. Dialogue and agreement between participants will at times be difficult; conflict and confusion can be expected. Interdisciplinary dialogue, activity and conflict must be processed in a collaborative manner which utilizes disciplinary paradigms, yet leads to an emergent understanding which is more than a simple collage of disciplinary views. In short, corporate paradigms are needed which can direct heterogeneous research groups toward established goals without unduly restricting their potential creativity.
This shared conception of a typical estuary can be best understood from a description of its formation. Consider all regions within a typical estuary as points on a plot of two parameters such as temperature and salinity. Such a plot would have texture since regions of common characteristics could be spatially congregated on the plot and appear darker than less common combinations of parameters. The precise dimensions and textures of the plot are not necessary for utility of this approach; only an agreement of a conceptual existence of such a plot is required. A third dimension, such as dissolved oxygen, can be added and the regions of the estuary located to give a three-dimensional object. Again, regions of common characteristics would be clustered to give texture to the larger object. Additional dimensions now are added to form an nth-dimensional object which contains the geographical, geological, hydraulic, chemical and biological features of a typical temperate estuary. Spatial dimensions relevant only to specific estuaries are not included; however, dimensions applicable to a broad class of estuaries (e.g., water depth, sediment slope) would be included.
It is not necessary to specify, describe or define each of these n dimensions, but only to imagine that such an nth-dimensional conception could exist. Its shape and texture will change with time in response to the temporal changes typical of estuaries. Changes in given parameters will cause deflections or distortion throughout the conception. The effects of dredging or other activities can be envisioned as alterations of the shape and texture of the shared conception.
Activity 1 often leads to institutional titles and positions. Often the title "director" or "principal investigator" is given to the administrator. Identity is largely established through the size, sophistication and prestige of staff and facilities. Institutional demands are usually directed to administrators. Numerous necessary tasks are performed on a day-to-day basis and recognition for successful accomplishment, when it does occur, is typically of short duration. The use of disciplinary paradigms is seldom required; thus, recognitions and risks of a disciplinary nature are relatively low. A low-risk, broad professional recognition, however, is provided largely because of title and position.
Activity 2 generally is associated with a low level of recognition through institutional titles and positions. Individuals establish some identity and recognition through the size and sophistication of facilities and support personnel. The research team itself is often the primary source of recognition. Work generally is conducted safely within established paradigms and a moderate disciplinary recognition of short to moderate duration with a low risk of rejection typically can be expected. Scheduling and coordinated supplies, equipment and personnel can at times be a demanding task. Long periods of consistent, repetitive and sometimes boring activities are common. Progress is readily identified by measurable results.
Activity 3 can lead to moderate institutional titles and positions; however, higher advances usually require a shift to administrative activity. New applications of the general paradigms are often needed; cautious expansion and refinement of paradigms may be required. Disciplinary risk and recognition is generally moderate; nevertheless, success can occasionally bring about substantial recognition of a long duration. Cautious collaboration and overlap with Activity 2 are common. Individuals in Activity 3, however, are often required to "save" a project by making some sense of data previously collected.
Activity 4 is generally considered to be the most radical by disciplinary communities and institutions; consequently, high institutional positions and titles are not easily obtained. The risk of disciplinary rejection is high; however, if new concepts become accepted, the extent and duration of recognition is most significant. To offset the high risk of disciplinary rejection, individuals tend to ignore the risks of departing from institutional procedures, a reaction which removes them still further from the upper levels of institutional hierarchies. Individuals establish strong identities with concepts rather than with facilities and the size of projects.
A major difficulty that arrives in team research is that individuals do not realistically deal with the recognitions and risks associated with their activities (see Table 1). Individuals who identify with Activity 1 or Activity 4 are most vulnerable. Activity 1 individuals may aspire for long term recognition for disciplinary contributions and they may feel frustrated by the difficulties of attaining this goal from their present position. Activity 4 individuals may be frustrated by the lack of day-to-day measurable progress and recognition; they may become bitter because "lesser" individuals have risen to higher and more prestigious institutional positions.
Failure to realistically deal with individual recognition needs and risks can be destructive to research efforts, especially interdisciplinary ones. Most commonly, individuals tend to drift back to the relative safety of their sub-domains. They may also attempt to compensate by identifying simultaneously with several of the four activities which results in conflicting recognition requirements and risks. Such individuals feel constant pressure; they attempt to compensate by leading hectic schedules and working long hours. Some may be able to gain an acceptable identity from such conflicting activities. Frequently, however, they do not achieve satisfaction and compensate by accepting more tasks. The resulting work overloads typically are detrimental because individuals often cannot respond to group need nor will they have time to think through new concepts and creatively interact with individuals from other disciplines.
An individual will establish his career such that his personality and ambitions tend to be most compatible with the recognitions and risks of one of the four activities described. An individual will tend to identify with varying degrees of success. In a reasonably balanced research team, the personality and ambition of individuals will differ considerably; as a result, the activities within the group will often conflict because individuals are responding to different frameworks of perceived recognitions and risks. The relative differences of these recognitions and risks are identified in Table 1; we believe that they are major factors in establishing conflicts, however, they are not intended to be all inclusive.
In Table 2 [paper copy only] we have related a number of research team conflicts to the recognitions and risks shown in Table 1. We believe that these conflicts are not atypical. Failure to resolve and process these conflicts appears to follow a pattern. Research teams fragment (usually into sub-domains); administrators feel pressured to get out measurable results and Activity 4 is abandoned. Final reports generally deal with problems of low disciplinary risks, and the bulk of unused data is large. An overall conceptual framework and rationale which explains why particular data were collected and particular procedures and concepts were employed are most often absent.
We would not be so presumptuous to suggest that we have a solution to these conflicts; at best, we have a number of suggestions. First, we believe that individuals must honestly and realistically deal with their aspirations and capabilities. Participants need to clarify what they hope to personally gain from their research efforts. Having done this, an organizational framework may be developed so that the pursuit of research goals is most compatible with the aspirations and capabilities of participants. In most cases, all four activities are needed and a major organizational task is to resolve power struggles between these activities so that they may complement each other.
We believe that many environmental research projects pass through the cycles, often spanning a granting period. The relative influence of each of these four activities should vary within the cycle. Thus, a static research structure will likely not be desirable unless research goals are extremely narrow. It is a useful exercise for the research team to describe the relative influences of these four activities over the life of a research cycle. An approach that we have employed with some success is to ask each principal investigator to distribute a given number of influence points for each activity over different phases of a research cycle. Influence was described as the degree of direction provided by those individuals who identify most closely with a particular activity. An example of a point of distribution arrived at after some discussion an modification is shown in Figure 2. At points where the primary influence changes from one activity to another, we have established milestones which described our general expectations at that time. Each sub-group of the team, of which there were three, was required to describe to the entire group of co-investigators how it intended to pass a given milestone. This approach has tended to reduce destructive power struggles and internalize recognitions and risks.
There are difficulties encountered in interdisciplinary research which cannot be resolved completely from within the group7. Research will encounter surprises and unanticipated difficulties. Personnel changes, equipment failure, and experimental and theoretical setbacks are typical. Moreover, problems may be encountered which are beyond the capabilities of a current project. Thus, interdisciplinary research projects may end with a broad understanding which has been rigorously examined yet which is not a rigorously defined whole. The broad perspective view will be significantly clarified, however, it may still contain some notably fuzzy impressions. When such results occur, a tendency exists to publish only those portions of the picture which are rigorously defined. As a result, the broad picture is often lost and the need to clarify the fuzzy impressions is not communicated. We suggest that if the experiences and results of interdisciplinary research are to be communicated to broader communities, then we must expect and anticipate "speculative holes" in published results so long as they are clearly identified as such. Thus, if we expect publications to contribute toward the evolution of interdisciplinary understanding, then a major task of such publications must be to describe factors which are poorly understood, but which appear from a broad perspective to be important.
1.H. K. Schilling, Science 127, 1324 (1958). -back to text-
2. D. J. de Solla Price, Little Science Big Science (Columbia University Press, N. Y., 1965). The most specialized sub-domains seem to be identical to Price's "invisible colleagues." -back to text-
3. H. H. Watson, On Understanding Physics (Cambridge, England, 1938). -back to text-
4. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1962).-back to text-
5. S. Toulmin, Human Understanding, Volume 1 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1972). Toulmin states that "Disciplinary commitment and integrity are, thus, to modern science what sanctity and loyalty to the order were to monasticism." -back to text-
6. L. W. Zelby, Science 183, 1267 (1974). -back to text-
7. R. Straus, Science 182, 895 (1973). -back to text-
8. G. Bugliarello, J. of the Hydraulic Division, Proc. of the Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 98, 751 (1972). -back to text-
9. K. E. Boulding, Beyond Economics (The university of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1970) p. 146. -back to text-
10. D. A. Bella, Engineering Issues, Proc. of the Am. Soc. Civil Eng 100, EI1, 17 (1974). -back to text-
11. Figures shown for illustration only and appear in the same form as in the following research proposal. L. S. Slotta, Systems Properties of Estuaries, Environmental Impact of Dredging, and Planning Decisions, Research Proposal Submitted to RANN, NSF (1973). -back to text-
12. The research was jointly supported by Environment Systems and Resources Program, NSF-RANN, and the Office of Water Resources Research, USDI.13. We wish to thank our fellow co-investigators D. R. Hancock, J. E. McCauley, L. S. Slotta, C. K. Sollit and J. M. Stander for their inputs in developing ideas and concepts herein.
This paper was originally published in the "Journal of Environmental Systems." 62:105-124 Reprinted by permission.
