Investigating Communication Hindrance in Interdisciplinary
Collaboration: A Grounded Theory Approach
Boryung Ju, Tao Jin, J. Brenton Stewart
School of Library & Information Science
267 Coates Hall, Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA USA
[email protected], taojin@lsu,edu, [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to explore the
communication barriers and challenges that interdisciplinary
researchers might encounter when collaborating with their
counterparts from other disciplines, and (2) to survey how the
researchers mitigate the hurdles in the collaboration
processes. Eight interdisciplinary researchers from a research
institute were recruited to participate in the study. They were
individually interviewed with a semi-structured protocol. The
interview transcripts were then analyzed using a grounded
theory approach that consists of open coding, axial coding,
and selective coding in sequence. The preliminary results
show that the major communication hindrances include:
domain disparity; discrepancies of individual researchers in
terms of their perspectives, preferences, and behaviors; varied
interpretations on the meanings of shared artifacts used by the
interdisciplinary research groups; and divergence of personal
motivation and engagement levels toward interdisciplinary
collaboration. The participants considered active and constant
learning to be the most useful strategy to cope with these
communication obstacles. These findings yield some novel
insights into the interdisciplinary collaboration effort and
provide new empirical evidence to substantiate what previous
studies have found. In addition, this study generates a deeper
understanding about communication difficulties that
interdisciplinary researchers might face, which can in turn be
translated into practical implications for administrators and
policy makers who are responsible for managing
interdisciplinary collaborations.
Keywords
Interdisciplinary research collaboration, communication
barriers, grounded theory, axial coding, selective coding.
INTRODUCTION
The growth in cyberinfrastructure has radically transformed
contemporary modes of communication in scientific
discovery, data manipulation, and knowledge diffusion. This
ever-evolving cyberinfrastructure provides not only a
{This is the space reserved for copyright notices.]
ASIST 2015, November 6-10, 2015, St. Louis, MO, USA.
[Author Retains Copyright. Insert personal or
institutional copyright notice here.]
[Type here]
framework that helps research scientists transcend space and
time, but also the impetus to build more collaborative
environments across segmented scientific fields. The term
interdisciplinary collaboration can be defined as an interactive
process where members from diverse disciplines work
together to achieve a common research goal (Ponte et al.,
2011). These interactions generally take place in a social
context that facilitates knowledge and task sharing, and are
characterized by the deep integration of the concepts, theories,
methods, and perspectives of multiple disciplines, resulting in
an amalgamated body of scholarship that moves beyond the
boundaries of any single discipline (Sonnenwald, 2007;
Westbrook, 2009).
The new research environment highlights the importance of
examining interdisciplinary collaboration phenomena and
calls for more systematic, in-depth analyses. Previous relevant
studies have investigated factors (Hara et al., 2003;
Maglaughlin & Sonnenwald, 2005), communication tools
(Olson & Olson, 2000), and costs of coordination (Cummings
& Kiesler, 2005) that impact scientific collaboration. Few
studies have been done that focus on individuals’ perceptions
and experiences of communication during the collaborative
effort. Communication, however, is an essential and profound
component of interdisciplinary collaboration (Sonnenwald,
2007), as there are, by nature, numerous discrepancies among
interdisciplinary
collaborators
due
to
different
epistemologies, paradigms, values, and publication modes
(Becher, 1981; Gardner, 2013; Katz & Martin, 1997). The
lack of empirical materials to describe and explain the
daunting communication problems of such efforts inhibits
theory development about the social ordering of such
collaboration.
The purpose of this study is to identify and develop an
understanding of communication barriers and challenges that
researchers may encounter during collaboration with their
counterparts from other disciplines, as well as approaches that
they may take to overcome these hurdles. The two research
questions are: (1) what are the core communicational barriers
and challenges that interdisciplinary researchers might
encounter during collaborations? and (2) how do they mitigate
those gaps manifested in the process?
Participants
Areas of Research Focus
1
2
3
Examples of current/previous interdisciplinary
research project domains they involved
High performance computing
Medicine, Anthropology, Biology
Computer science, Mass communication
Computational physics
Computer science: visual computing
IT applications and implementation
in organizations
4
High performance computing
Tangible computing, Computational biology
5
Mathematics: numerical optimization and
Computer science/engineering
applications
6
Environmental engineering
Geology, Coastal science, and Oceanography
7
Bioinformatics, Physical chemistry
Biological science, Veterinary medicine
8
Experimental music, Digital media
Digital art, Hydro engineering
Table 1. Research background of the study participants and their interdisciplinary involvement
METHODS
In order to answer our research questions, we adopted a
qualitative approach. First, we chose a research center, which
is affiliated with a major university in the southern part of the
U.S., as our study site. The center is an interdisciplinary
research institute that promotes innovation and inventiveness
in research. It houses nearly 130 researchers with expertise in
various disciplines, from art, biology, and computer science
to mathematics, oceanography, physics and engineering. To
recruit study participants, we identified approximately 100
potential names via the research center’s directory and
compiled them into a list. Each individual on the list was then
contacted by an email invitation with a brief questionnaire
about their background and research interests. Those who
agreed were then interviewed, and each interview session
lasted around 45 to 60 minutes. The interviewees were
prompted with a series of preset open-ended questions,
ranging from the participant’s research areas and projects
carried out at the site to specific collaborative experience with
others, such as communication issues and difficult situations
encountered, and the ways he or she moved beyond these
challenges. All interview sessions were voice- recorded and
later transcribed for data analysis. Results presented in this
short work-in-progress paper include data gathered from eight
such in-depth interview sessions conducted in spring 2016,
with eight individual researchers (i.e., professors or research
associates). The participants are all males with a good
diversity of age groups, ethnicity, and academic rank or title.
Table 1 summarizes the participants’ primary research areas
and interdisciplinary research projects, either already
completed or currently underway.
For data analysis, a grounded theory approach was taken to
discover the themes that emerged from the data. Grounded
theory is a design of qualitative research where researchers
attempt to establish a theory grounded in the relations between
data and the categories derived from that data (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). The primary
emphasis of this approach is on “the constant comparison of
data with emerging categories and theoretical sampling of
different groups to maximize the similarities and differences
of information” (Creswell, 1994, p.12). The grounded theory
[Type here]
approach adopted in the present study goes through a multistep coding process that comprises open, axial, and selective
coding in sequence, ultimately aiming at eliciting the core
variable(s) that encompasses all the collected data.
Open coding is an initial unrestricted stage of the coding
process and usually yields chunks of texts, which will later be
presented as categories, from original sources. Axial coding is
a process of connecting and reshaping the categories emerged
from the open coding stage and attempts to identify
interrelationships among the open codes. Selective coding is
the stage to crystalize a core concept or variable that holds
within all the data and to find its in-depth meaning (Lindlof &
Taylor, 2002). In the present study, at the open coding stage,
two authors of this paper independently read though the
interview transcripts and developed their own open codes.
Examples from the interview transcripts were also jotted
down. At the axial and selective coding stages, the two coders
worked together, examining and comparing what they have
completed. Through discussion, a reconciled list of open
codes was produced. Then, the coders comprehensively
examined the codes and their properties to identify the
relationships therein and make connections. Some categories
were collapsed and merged into larger ones, while some
categories were expanded and new categories were added.
The final stage begins with the selection of the core variable,
and, through rereading the transcripts, all data pertaining to
the core variable are selectively coded.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, we present some preliminary results obtained
from the open and axial coding processes. The results showed
four salient categories of communication obstacles that
influence interdisciplinary researchers’ collaborative
experience (ordered by importance by response frequencies).
The first identified category is domain disparity, which refers
to the differences perceived by individual researchers
regarding different subject domains. The differences may be
embodied in varied contexts, such as vocabulary structures
(e.g., nomenclature, language, terminology/jargon), research
bases (e.g., epistemological and ontological viewpoints,
paradigms, literature), research methodologies (e.g., social
sciences vs. engineering), and mindsets (e.g., anthropologists’
vs. computer engineers’), but all are related to the researchers’
individual subject domains. The second category is the
discrepancy of individual researchers in terms of their unique
perspectives, preferences, or behaviors. Successful
collaborations need a great deal of reconciliation and
adjustments among collaborators who may have different
norms, values, and normative behaviors; researchers may
manifest distinct research focuses or interests, as well as
publication preferences and priorities. These findings echo
what Sonnenwald (2007, p.658) observes: individual
collaborators may hold “different perspectives regarding what
constitutes a research goal, realistic tasks, and task completion
time frames”. The third category is the varied interpretations
of the meanings of shared artifacts used by the
interdisciplinary research groups. During the collaborative
process, some artifacts - such as standards, models, codes, and
algorithms- are often shared by multiple research groups
undertaking an interdisciplinary collaboration project. But
quite frequently, in terms of what the artifacts mean and the
role it plays in a group, different researchers may have
significantly dissimilar opinions, which can significantly
impair communication. The last category is the divergence of
personal motivation and engagement levels toward the
interdisciplinary collaboration. Researchers who have high
levels of aspiration for and engagement in interdisciplinary
collaboration may often be excited about what they do, and
are inclined to be active in such projects. In contrast,
researchers in the same group with low levels of motivation
may not be quite as responsive in such projects, which may
frustrate their counterparts and dampen group morale.
empirical evidence that substantiates and reinforces what
previous studies have found (e.g., Kiesler & Cummings, 2002;
Maglaughlin & Sonnenwald, 2005; Sonnenwald, 2007). In
addition, these findings offer a deeper understanding about
communication difficulties that interdisciplinary researchers
might encounter. This understanding can then be translated
into practical implications for administrators and policy
makers who are responsible for managing interdisciplinary
collaborations. In addition, the findings may potentially be
helpful to researchers who study scientific collaboration,
scholarly communication, and epistemic culture by providing
a detailed description of what communication challenges
researchers may face in collaboration situations, and how they
attempt to resolve these challenges.
Regarding the four identified strategies to cope with these
barriers and challenges, the first and most useful strategy is
that of active and constant learning. In order to mitigate the
communication gap, researchers must keep learning from
other disciplines by, for example, reading literature and
tutorials recommended by their counterparts, or by attending
conferences in other domains. The second strategy is to bring
interdisciplinary researchers into close proximity; proximity
helps collaborators make connections, transfer information
and knowledge, and trigger processes. The third strategy is to
keep an open mind. The participants illustrated that, to
overcome any communication problems in interdisciplinary
collaboration projects, the collaborator must maintain an open
mind, be willing to work together with and learn from others,
and respect and trust their counterparts. The final strategy is
to foster a collaboration-friendly culture that embraces
individual differences and encourages synergy.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative &
Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preliminary results we have presented above, we
observe that our findings not only yield a few novel insights
into the interdisciplinary collaboration phenomena (e.g., the
third and fourth categories of barriers), but also provide new
[Type here]
As a work in progress, verifying the axial codes and eliciting
the selective code is still under way. Since this study takes a
qualitative approach, we do not address statistical reliability
issues, such as Cohen’s kappa coefficient or Kendall’s W
(coefficient of concordance) among coders. Rather, we aim at
collecting more data by conducting six or seven more
interviews that could give us a saturation point for the data.
Further collection and analysis of additional data is currently
in progress. We believe that our effort in assessing the crucial
factors influencing interdisciplinary collaboration is
meaningful for creating the best possible environment for
facilitating and sustaining interdisciplinary work.
REFERENCES
Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary
cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109-122.
Cummings, J. & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research
across disciplinary and organizational boundaries.
Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.
Gardner, S. (2013). Paradigmatic differences, power, and
status: A qualitative investigation of faculty in one
interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability
science. Sustainability Science, 8, 241-252.
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S., & Sonnenwald, D. (2003).
An emerging view of scientific collaboration:
Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that
impact collaboration. Journal of the Society for
Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.
Katz, J. & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration?
Research Policy, 16, 1-18.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know
about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of
research. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work
(pp. 57-81). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lindlof, T. & Taylor, B. (2002). Qualitative Communication
Research Methods. 2nd. Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Maglaughlin, K. & Sonnenwald, D. (2005, July). Factors that
impact interdisciplinary natural science research
collaboration in academia. In Proceedings of the ISSI (pp.
24-25).
Olson, G. & Olson, J. (2000). Distance matters. HumanComputer Interaction, 15, 139-178.
Ponte, P., Gross, A., Milliman-Richard, Y., & Lacey, K.
(2011). Interdisciplinary teamwork and collaboration: An
[Type here]
essential element of a positive practice environment.
Annual Review of Nursing Research, 28(1), 159-189.
Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In: B.
Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 41 (pp. 643-681), Medford, NJ:
Information Today.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative
research: Grounded Theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Westbrook, L. (2009). Area and Interdisciplinary Studies
Literatures and Their Users. Encyclopedia of Library and
Information Sciences, Third Edition (pp. 221-232). New
York: Taylor and Francis