Magazine article The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE

Come out of Your Cubbyhole with a Mind Open to Synergy

Magazine article The Times Higher Education Supplement : THE

Come out of Your Cubbyhole with a Mind Open to Synergy

Article excerpt

Managing your own expectations is the first step towards successful interdisciplinary work. Matthew Reisz reports

Pressures from funders and the nature of many of today's most crucial challenges are pushing more and more researchers towards interdisciplinary work. So what are the essential tools for those venturing beyond the comfort zones of their own disciplines?

Some of the answers are set out in an article titled "Ten simple rules for a successful cross-disciplinary collaboration", published in the online open access journal PLOS Computational Biology last month.

This was written by Bernhard Knapp, research fellow in structural bioinformatics at the University of Oxford, and a team of 19 other authors. Although most are theoretical computational biologists drawing on more or less happy experiences of working with experimental scientists, Dr Knapp strongly suspects that the lessons apply much more widely.

Many of the problems that arise in interdisciplinary work, Dr Knapp explains, come down to "expectations - people are used to what happens in their own fields and assume they happen elsewhere. The earlier and more explicitly you address these issues, the better. If you just wait and see what happens, that is generally not good for the project."

Two key areas in which such troubles can arise are flagged up in the article. The first is the danger of failing to recognise "the different pace of different fields". Remember that "journals in different disciplines might have different periods of time from submission to publication". Even more important is to avoid "mak[ing] assumptions about how hard fellow collaborators are working based on how long they take to get back to you with results".

Equally crucial, according to the authors of the PLOS paper, is understanding that "different fields have different reward models". This applies to "impact factor scales", "the preferred ordering of authors", even what counts as "a 'significant' contribution to a manuscript". Anyone who assumes that their discipline's way is the only way is likely to get very confused and cause friction with their partners.

Different fields often have different definitions of what counts as "data" and may use the same word in very different ways ("model" is a notorious example of a term that has as many meanings as there are disciplines). To get around this, Dr Knapp and his co-authors urge research workers to remember that "a good relationship is based on mutually understandable communication" and to "agree on a joint nomenclature". …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.