Majority of complex real-world problems do not come neatly sorted by discipline. This requires cross-disciplinary collaboration and innovation which usually happens at the interference of disciplines. However, serval difficulties could arise when researchers from different disciplines work together. One of the main challenges in the interdisciplinary research environment is the differences in scientific concepts and language between various fields of knowledge. In our class, I noticed the difficulty of from second class when one of the faculty asked the students to define the word “model?” Students gave various definitions. Then the faculty stated that the model for him means an equation. Another faculty objected by saying “no this is just one type of modeling, a model is a representation of reality.” I expected after that discussion that we are going to face throughout the semester many similar conflicts. However, the panel on Tuesday went very well, and it was very useful to see how researchers from different could work together in spite of the disciplinary barriers. The panel reminded me of the term “trading zone” coined by the historian of science Peter Galison, as a metaphor to explain how researchers from different scientific communities could collaborate with each other on research projects and exchange ideas. According to Galison, “Two groups can agree on rules of exchange even if they ascribe utterly different significance to the objects being exchanged; they may even disagree on the meaning of the exchange process itself. Nonetheless, the trading partners can hammer out a local coordination, despite vast global differences. In an even more sophisticated way, cultures in interaction frequently establish contact languages, systems of discourse that can vary from the most function-specific jargons, through semi-specific pidgins, to full-fledged creoles rich enough to support activities as complex as poetry and metalinguistic reflection” (Galison 1997, p. 783).
Even though all panelists are researching risk management and resilience toward natural hazard I found that there are serval differences in their approach to studying this topic. For instance, Margarete who is coming from development background focus on how cities and region could prepare for the hazard impact. So, I would imagine that her research focuses on prior disaster situation. While Zhang interested in studying long-term impact especially concerning housing reconstruction. Chris examines resilience on humanitarian supply chain and interested in quantifying the impact, monitoring how does it could change over time and what could we do to get a better result. Thus he deals with the initial and long-term effects of hazards. Also, the panelists have different ways of getting data. Some of them use survey, focus groups interview (quantitative data) while other use quantitative data from the web or by doing experiments. Also, they differ in their approach to treating data. Researchers how deal with quantitative data use coding, ethnography, memoing. Others use regression analysis, ANOVA, data analytics.
All the researchers were specialized in their field with a passion for doing transdisciplinary research. They were aware of the differences in their backgrounds and, but they see it as a rich source of knowledge, collaboration, and wisdom rather than a source of conflict. I think such positive interdisciplinary would be impossible without having open minds and humbleness. Also doing interdisciplinary require a certain level of mutual understanding on basic concepts otherwise it would be difficult to communicate and build a cohesive body of knowledge. Sometimes this might need having people who understand the language of multiple fields of knowledge to facilitate and stimulate the discussion between the specialists. Otherwise, interdisciplinary research might fail due to conflict or might end up with less value than disciplinary research.
Reference:
Galison, P. (1997). Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mohammed Baaoum 
Interesting post, I enjoyed reading about your descriptions of how the panelist’s work reflected differences in their goals. I remember learning about the difficulty of interdisciplinary projects during a water management course as an undergrad.In addition to different knowledge bases and technical languages, people from different disciplines may view “success” of the project differently. For example, some may view conserving as much water as possible the success, while others will prioritize ensuring enough for certain uses, while others still may be concerned with the quality, not quantity of water.
LikeLike