What is CDR? – A Few Examples Water Resources in a Changing Climate – Idaho Climate Change Large CD consortia — not the case that everyone works on everything Comprise individual teams engaged in different kinds of CDR with no overall integration

What is CDR? – A Few Examples UI/CATIE IGERT Team Focused CDR effort A particular team working on projects that are integrating (i.e., yield unified, synthetic solutions)

What is CDR? – A Few Examples USGS Water Quality Survey Specific, multi-disciplinary team No integration of component research other than at publication level

What is CDR? – A Few Examples Entomologist Reading Philosophy One individual—no team Synthesis at individual level

‘CDR’ Analyzed ‘CDR’ defined: research involving the participation of more than one discipline It concerns inquiry (research), as opposed to transmission (teaching)‏ It concerns disciplines

‘Discipline’ Analyzed ‘Discipline’ defined: an intrinsically constituted set of practices that is sufficiently widespread and stable to receive institutional support Set of practices includes methods and principles Intrinsic vs. extrinsic modes of classification They are, roughly, epistemic communities

Examining CDR Theoretical – There is a need to understand CDR along various dimensions Participation: Individual ↔ Collaborative (Frodeman, et al. 2010) Disciplinary Breadth: Narrow ↔ Wide (Stokols, et al. 2003) Integration Level: Multi- ↔ Trans- (Eigenbrode, et al. 2007) – How should differences along these dimensions be modeled? – What are the processes necessary to the successful conduct of CDR?

Examining CDR Theoretical – The integration dimension is key here  Integration is “widely regarded as the primary methodology of interdisciplinarity” (Klein 2011)  Integration is a “making whole” of different disciplinary elements (e.g., languages, concepts, models, methods, frameworks) that involves collective, iterative explanation and problem solving  This is the hallmark of interdisciplinarity

Examining CDR Applied – How can CDR efforts be developed? – How can they be facilitated? – What problems undermine CDR efforts, and how can these be avoided? – What impact will new technology have on the conduct of CDR (e.g., new cybercollaborative tools, enhanced capacity for data storage, access, manipulation, and synthesis)?

Motivation – Drivers “Interdisciplinary thinking is rapidly becoming an integral feature of research as a result of four powerful ‘drivers’:

Motivation – Drivers The inherent complexity of nature and society The desire to explore problems and questions that are not confined to a single discipline

Motivation – Drivers The need to solve societal problems The power of new technologies.” – Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, NAS, p. 40

Motivation – Responses Universities and Colleges – Interdisciplinary curricula – Structures to encourage collaboration among investigators Federal and State Agencies – Funding opportunities – Internal structures Private Institutions Industry

Motivation – Responses NSF IGERT – Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship – Educating U.S. Ph.D. scientists and engineers by building on the foundations of their disciplinary knowledge with interdisciplinary training Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) – E.g., Science and Technology Centers – Conduct research at the intersection of multiple disciplines and foster transformative science and excellence in education

Motivation – Responses NASA is looking to improve and advance cross- disciplinary activities, especially as the nation looks to global change impacts and adaptation USDA - National Institute for Food and Agriculture new funding strategy emphasizes large scale, coordinated, cross-disciplinary projects 2006 saw the creation of the NIH Common Fund, which supports cross-cutting, trans-NIH programs. These include Global Health, Health Economics, Nanomedicine, and Interdisciplinary Research, which focuses on changing the “academic research culture” both within and without NIH.

Motivation – Challenges The challenges to CDR are manifold: – The academic reward system (NAS 2005) – Lack of conducive institutional culture (Klein 2010) – Lack of training opportunities (Rosa and Machlis 2002) – Disciplinary chauvinism (Schoenberger 2001) – Turfism (Morse, et al. 2007) – Group dynamics (Jakobsen, et al. 2004) – Communication (Crowley et al. 2010)