Processes and Outcomes of Transdisciplinary Collaboration Dan Stokols

Processes and Outcomes of Transdisciplinary Collaboration Dan Stokols School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine Society for Risk Analysis Annual Conference Palm Springs, CA December 8, 2004

Surge of Interest and Investment in Transdisciplinary Collaboration Over the Past Three Decades

Large-Scale Initiatives to Promote Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration • Mac. Arthur Foundation Networks in Mental Health and Human Development (1980 s) • • NCI TTURC, CECCR, TREK Programs (1999 -) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Active Living Program (2002 -) • • NIH Roadmap Initiative (2003 -) NAS/Keck Foundation Initiative to Transform Interdisciplinary Research (2003 -)

Transdisciplinary Collaboration… in Principle and in Practice

Presumed Benefits of Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration • Greater Explanatory Power • Methodological Pluralism • Broad-Gauged Public Policies • Advantages of Generalist Training Programs

Potential Costs of Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration • Labor Intensive and Conflict Prone • Administratively Complex • Analytic Breadth vs. Depth Tradeoffs • Diffuse vs. Focused Conceptual Models

Key Question By what criteria should the scientific and societal value of these large-scale investments in transdisciplinary research be judged?

Outcomes of Scientific Collaboration • Novel Integrative Ideas • Scientific Advances • Training Outcomes • Institutional Changes • Public Policy Innovations • Public Health Outcomes

Assessments of Collaborative Outcomes • Processes and Products • Univariate vs. Multivariate Criteria • Center-Specific and Initiative-Wide • Substantive vs. Transdisciplinarity Focus

Criteria for Evaluating Successful Transdisciplinary Collaboration Multiple “Windows” on processes of TD Collaboration: • Self-Reported Changes in TD Activities and Values • Semantic Differential Measures of Affective Experiences • Collaborative Relations Survey of Teamwork • Archive of “Intellectual Capital” and Related Products

The Periodic Table of Elements

TD Terminology • • • Disciplinary A-disciplinary/Non-disciplinary Multidisciplinary Interdisciplinary Transdisciplinary Inter-Professional Inter-Sectoral Inter-Perspective Inquiry Trans-Experiential

Some Dimensions of Transdisciplinarity • • • Non-Collaborative / Collaborative Geographically-Dispersed / Place-Based Teams Scientific (conceptual) / Applied (instrumental) University-Centric / Inter-sectoral Sustainable / Non-Sustainable Spontaneous / Routinized

Cross-Disciplinary Research. . . a process through which the perspectives of two or more scientific or professional fields are combined to achieve a more complete understanding of a particular phenomenon

Scientific Discipline A field of research that focuses on distinctive substantive concerns (e. g. , biological, psychological, social, physical environmental “facts”); and emphasizes particular analytic levels (e. g. , molecular, organismic, interpersonal, organizational, societal), concepts, and methods

Disciplinary Foci • Biological Facts • Psychological Facts • Social Facts • Physical-Environmental Facts

Physical Environmental Fact Biomedical Fact High Levels of Air and Water Pollution in One’s Neighborhood Elevated Cancer Rates Among Residents Social Fact Environmental Racism .

Types of Cross-Disciplinary Science l multidisciplinary - researchers in different disciplines work independently or sequentially, each from his or her own disciplinary-specific perspective, to address a common problem l interdisciplinary - researchers work jointly, but from each of their respective disciplinary perspectives, to address a common problem l transdisciplinary - researchers work jointly using a shared conceptual framework that draws together discipline-specific theories, concepts, and approaches, to address a common problem (Rosenfield, 1992)

Horizontal Integration of Disciplines Crosses disciplines within one level or category of analysis and discourse Vertical Integration of Disciplines Links disciplines across analytic levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. molecular/genetic/biological psychological/developmental social/organizational/institutional societal/community policy levels.

UCI TTURC Transdisciplinary Core Research Team Daniel Stokols, Ph. D. Jennifer Gress Richard Harvey Kimari Phillips Juliana Fuqua Supported by NIH-TTURC Award #DA-13332

TD Core Research Team

Transdisciplinary Core Goals and Strategies 1. Establish criteria for assessing Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration (TDSC) 2. Model the antecedents, processes and outcomes of TDSC 3. Develop data-gathering tools for analyzing TDSC 4. Develop a grounded theory of TDSC

Working Model of Transdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration Antecedents • Intrapersonal • Social • Physical Environmental • Organizational • Institutional Processes • Behavioral • Affective • Interpersonal • Intellectual Outcomes • Novel Ideas • Integrative Models • New Training programs • Institutional Changes • Innovative Policies

Some Caveats… • Few precedents for this type of research in the field of science studies • Little prior agreement on the meaning and intended outcomes of transdisciplinary research • Non-random selection of scientists into collaborative research ventures; small Ns • Non-neutral status of evaluators, reactivity of measures • Indeterminant timeframe for evaluation--5 year program evaluation vs. multi-decade historical perspective

What processes account for TD collaboration and are they experienced differently among TTURC members? Multiple “Windows” on processes of TD Collaboration: • Self-Reported Changes in TD Activities and Values • Semantic Differential Measures of Affective Experiences • Collaborative Relations Survey of Teamwork • Archive of “Intellectual Capital” and Related Products

Behavior Change Index (BCI) The Behavior Change Index (BCI) assessed behaviors that indicate a willingness to participate in TDSC. Sample items included: a. Attended conferences or Read journals outside your field b. Readiness/willingness to collaborate with other TTURC investigators c. Obtained new insights into your own research through discussion with others d. Established links with your fellow TTURC colleagues that have led to or, may lead to future collaborative studies

Reported Increases in Transdisciplinary Behaviors Among UCI TTURC Members

Participation in Working Groups Increased

Investigators’ Semantic Differential Ratings of the TTURC Between Fall 2002 -Fall 2003

Semantic Differential Scale (SDS) SDS items assessed TTURC members’ affective impressions about the Center. Sample anchor words included: a. Satisfying/ Frustrating b. Optimistic/ Pessimistic c. Socially Integrated/ Alienated d. Enjoyable/ Unenjoyable e. Appreciated/ Unappreciated

Cyclical Variation in Affect Over Four Time Points

Neuroscientists’ and Behavioral Scientists’ Semantic Differential Ratings of the TTURC Between Fall 2002 -Fall 2003

Worlds of Difference Among Behavioral and Neuroscientists § Alternative “World Views” of Science (See D’Andrade, Three scientific world views and the covering law model. In D. Fiske & R. Shweder (Eds. ), Metatheory in social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986, 19 -4) § Dissimilar Sociospatial Environments and Cultural Norms

Implications of Alternative World Views § Centripetal Forces Toward Convergence within the UCI TTURC--for example, evolution of a shared conceptual model of tobacco addiction, use, and prevention § Centrifugal Forces Toward Divergence within TTURC centers, reflected in the reduced centrality of certain ideas and participants over time

Correspondence Analysis of the Degree to Which UCI TTURC Investigators Work Closely With Each Other to Integrate Ideas Mars Venus

Assessment of Intellectual Themes: assessed content of qualitative surveys and interviews. Sample items included: a. Have your collaboration efforts involved linking concepts or methods? b. What is the status of the collaborative integration? c. Do you think this integration will lead to a tangible product? If so, what kind?

Charting The Intellectual History of a Research Organization Evolution of Intellectual Themes • • • Which ideas were present at the outset of the TTURC? Which ideas were dropped in subsequent years? Which new ideas emerged later in the project? Which initial ideas were modified over time? Which ideas were integrated with previously separate ideas?

Determinants of “Collaboration Readiness” l Similarity of researchers’ scientific worldviews l Spatial, functional, and electronic proximity among investigators l Overlapping departmental identities of team members l History of collaboration on prior projects--preparation, practice, and trust l Members strongly committed to TD work l Director’s management experience and commitment l Formative evaluation processes to facilitate collaboration l Institutional support for TD collaboration

Alternative Pathways Toward Transdisciplinary Collaboration l Low level of readiness for TDSC steps taken to reduce barriers to collaboration high levels of collaborative activity over the long-term l High level of readiness for TDSC high levels of collaborative activity over a relatively short timeframe

Translation of Findings into Guidelines for Improving Future Collaborations • Continue to Expand Cumulative Database on TD Collaborations • Develop and Evaluate Educational Strategies for Training Future TD Scientists and Practitioners • Tailor Collaborative Goals and Arrangements to the Circumstances Surrounding Particular Projects