Technical reports

Citation

(2001), "Technical reports", Kybernetes, Vol. 30 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/k.2001.06730bab.004

Technical reports

Technical reports

Improving interdisciplinary collaboration

Keywords: Cybernetics

A report in Life Sciences Number 4, 2000, pp. 1-2, highlights the need for closer interdisciplinary collaboration. In particular, in the United Kingdom the research councils should be encouraged to modify their peer review process to permit closer interdisciplinary collaboration and universities should provide researchers from different disciplines with time to communicate and establish working relationships. To many readers this will not be an entirely new plea to the scientific communities not only in the UK but worldwide. Cyberneticians and systemists have, since the pioneering days of systems and cybernetics, pressed the case for all science to be interdisciplinary and not compartmentalised as tradition would have it.

This report backs up this ideal and these sentiments were among the many expressed publically at the comprehensive series of meetings between more than 700 researchers from the life sciences and physical sciences organised in 2000 by the UK's research councils. These councils were the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), (BBSRC) and the Medical research Council (MRC). Representatives from these councils, together with other scientists, visited the UK universities to discuss these issues with physical and life scientists. Groups meet to discuss possible research projects that would draw on the skills of all members. Larger groups were invited to identify motivations and hurdles to working at the interface and to suggest ways of overcoming the barriers. The results of some of these discussions are included in this section because of their particular interest to cybernetics and systems.

Need for good interdisciplinary collaboration

The report identified a common set of reasons why research at the interface was important. Chief among these, it said was:

"scientific need" – tackling problematic research questions, a desire to broaden knowledge, the challenge and stimulation of working across disciplines and the crossfertilisation of concepts. It was noted that to maintain international competitiveness, research at the interface is vital. Technology was also an important "driver" for interdisciplinary research, both as a way of offering new techniques and approaches and in that transfer of technology across disciplines can result in important advances. The attractiveness of interdisciplinary research to young scientists and undergraduates was another important reason why greater communication between the disciplines should be encouraged.

Barriers to close cooperation amongst the disciplines

A number of real and perceived hurdles to close co-operation between the disciplines was highlighted at the meetings and included in the Life Sciences report:

Delegates pointed to problems with knowing which research council or committee to apply to for grants, and potentially confusing modes of support within the research councils. Some scientists argued that three-year grants were too short for certain requirements, and there was a perception that feasibility studies are not funded and that the research councils themselves did not interact sufficiently.

Peer review was identified as a barrier, with grant applicants being penalised for not having a track record in interdisciplinary research, peers behaving "in discipline" and the lack of referees qualified to assess work at the interface. There was a perception that reviewers are unprepared to take the necessary degree of risk in assessing such applications. Researchers themselves were often too busy to make contacts with potential collaborators, there was a lack of mechanisms for finding collaborators, and the need to learn the language of a "foreign" discipline was difficult. There was also concern among scientists that they would not be given recognition by either discipline and this would hinder their career.

Logistical problems within institutions could also hinder cross-disciplinary activity, with issues of how overheads are allocated, the structure for undergraduate teaching, the increasing rarity of sabbatical leave and the infrequency of joint appointments being cited.

Recommendations

These meetings produced a number of recommendations, particularly in relation to the funding and reviewing of projects. It was suggested, for example, that universities could foster awareness of the importance of communication between departments and allow time for this through open days, joint seminars, joint teaching and joint appointments. In particular there was a need to support the development of career structures for researchers who switched disciplines. The full report is available on the Web site: www.tifrc.ac.uk/bmk/1s – under the heading "Programme information".

Examples of the inter-relationship between the physical and life sciences

The report in Life Sciences also provided an excellent example of the inter-relationship between the physical and the life sciences identified by researchers during the comprehensive series of meetings held in the United Kingdom. This is included as an Appendix, in this section.