1

Technologyenhancedlearningasasiteforinterdisciplinaryresearch

DraftVersion0.8

GráinneConole,EileenScanlon,PaulMundinandRobFarrow

InstituteofEducationalTechnology,TheOpenUniversity,UK

Email:g.c.conole@open.ac.uk

Contents1 Introduction.................................................................................................................22 Methodology ...............................................................................................................3These themes are discussed in greater detail in Section Four........................................43 Locating the research in the wider literature...............................................................53.1Definitionsandkeyconcepts ...............................................................................53.2Thechallengesofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearch .............................................93.3Epistemologicalandmethodologicalissues ......................................................123.4Theuseoftechnologiestofosterinterdisciplinarity .........................................133.5Capacitybuilding‐interdisciplinarityinundergraduateprogrammes..............173.6Theonlinediscussionfora .................................................................................18

4 Perspectives on interdisciplinarity from TEL researchers ........................................204.1Originsandcurrentacademicroles ...................................................................204.2Influences,beliefsandtheoreticalperspectives ...............................................244.3Methodologies,methodsandtools...................................................................274.4ChallengestoInterdisciplinarity ........................................................................354.5Thebenefitsofinterdisciplinaryworking ..........................................................44

4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................48

2

1IntroductionTheimpactoftheInternetonworkingpracticesandthewayweshareinformationandcommunicatehasbeenprofound.Recentweb2.0technologiesappeartobeleadingtoasimilarseismicshiftinpatternsofuserbehaviour–intermsofhowpeoplecommunicate,collaborateandnetwork,andintermsoftheperceptionsofcontentinaworldwhereitisfreeandmulti‐faceted(ConoleandAlevizou,2010).Thisleadstonewchallengesforthedeliveryofeducationacrosstechnologicalplatformsintheirmanyguises(TechnologyEnhancedLearning,NetworkedLearning,e‐Learning,LearningTechnology,andVirtualLearningEnvironments).Consequently,therehasalsobeenagrowthinresearchintotheuseoftechnologyineducationtomeetthesechallenges.Thishasdrawntogetherresearchteamsfrommanydisciplines,includingeducationalists,computerscientists,psychologists,informationscientists,andeducationaltechnologists,aswellassubjectmatterexperts(seeConoleandOliver,2007foradescriptionoftheemergenceofthee‐learningfield).Inparallel,increasingprominencehasbeengiventointerdisciplinarityasameansofaddressingcross‐disciplineresearchchallenges,whereresearchersfromtwoormoredisciplinesbringtheirapproachesandadaptthemtoformasolutiontoanewproblem.Indeed,interdisciplinarityhasbecomeincreasinglyimportantasameansofattemptingtoaddresscomplex,real‐worldresearchproblemsandgrandchallenges.Thisisparticularlytrueofresearchconcernedwiththeuseoftechnologyforlearningandteaching,whichbyitsnaturebringstogetherresearchersfromdifferentdisciplineperspectives(education,computerscience,psychology,informationscience,etc).Thisisevidentinrecentpolicyrhetoric,whichencouragesgreateruseoftechnologiestosupportlearning.Interdisciplinarityappearstobesupportedasthefavouredmeansofundertakingthisresearch,suchasintheTechnologyEnhancedLearning(TEL)programme(ca.£15Moverfiveyears)fundedbytheEPSRC/ESRC.Atitscore,theTELprogrammeisabouttacklingthesechallengesofeducationalsignificancefromaninterdisciplinaryperspective.ThevisionforinterdisciplinarityinaTELcontextforthisprogramme,asoutlinedintheoriginalcallwas:

Technologyenhancedlearning(TEL)requiresinterdisciplinarycollaborationacrossthedisciplinesoflearning,cognition,informationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT)andeducation,andbroadersocialsciences…Toachievethehighestambitionsforeducationandlifelonglearningweneedtoexploitfullywhatnewtechnologyoffers–forpersonalisinglearningandimprovingoutcomes…forcreatingmoreflexiblelearningopportunitiesandforimprovingtheproductivityoflearningandknowledgebuildingprocesses.Buttodothis,weneedamoreexplicitunderstandingofthenatureoflearningitself,bothformalandinformal,andthewayitisrespondingtochangesinsocietyandtheopportunitiescreatedbynewtechnologies…[This]willsupportinnovationfrombothresearchareas,eachchallengingtheother,torethinkwaysofmakinglearningmoreeffectiveandtodevelopthenewtechnologysolutionstomakethatpossible.Suchinterdisciplinaryresearchisintendedtohelpbuildnewunderstandingsofhowtechnologycanenhancelearning.(Thisisnolongeravailableonline,butiscitedinConole,2008)

3

However,towhatextentisthisvisiongroundedinexistingpracticesinresearch,teachingandlearning?WhatisthenatureofinterdisciplinarityinTELresearch?Whataretheperceivedbenefitsandtheidentifiedchallenges?Whatstrategiescanbeputinplacetopromotebetterinterdisciplinaryapproaches?Thesearesomeofthekeyquestionsthatareaddressedinthisreport,whichisdividedintofivesections.Thisintroductionsetsthesceneforthereportandprovidesanoverview.TheresearchquestionsandmethodologyaredescribedinSection2.Section3locatesthisworkwithinthebroaderresearchliterature.ThemainfindingsfromeighteeninterviewswithTELresearchersarediscussedinSection4.FinallySection5providesaconclusiontothereportandsuggestionsforfurtherwork.

2MethodologyTheaimofthisresearchwastoexploreifthereisanythingspecificaboutinterdisciplinarityinaTechnologyEnhancedLearning(TEL)researchcontext,andtoidentifystrategiesforsupporting,communicatinganddocumentinginterdisciplinarity.Inparticular,wewereinterestedinwhatinterdisciplinaryworkingmightbringtomulti‐disciplineresearchteamstohelpthemaddresschallengesthataretoobroadortoocomplextobesolvedbyasinglediscipline.TheprojectsetouttoexplorewhatdisciplinescontributetoresearchintoTechnologyEnhancedLearning,todocumenttheircognatedisciplinesandtoelicittheirdiverseepistemologicalbeliefs,methodologiesandapproaches.Italsosetouttoidentifythemainresearchchallengesforinterdisciplinaryteams.Theresearchconsistedofthreemainactivities.Firstly,RobertFarrowcarriedoutaliteraturereviewofinterdisciplinarityingeneral,andmorespecificallyresearchintoTechnologyEnhancedLearning.Secondly,broaderconsultationwiththeTEL‐researchcommunitywasconductedthroughtwoonlinefora.Thefirstwasaspartofaseriesof‘hotseats’associatedwiththeNetworkedLearningconference.ApositionalpaperonmethodologicalissuesinNetworkedLearningwasusedasastartingpointforthediscussion,alongwithaseriesofquestions,includinganumberspecificallyaroundinterdisciplinarityinTELresearch.Thepaperandassociateddiscussionscanbefoundhere(http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/index.php/forum/forum?id=8).Inparallelasimilarsetofquestionswasposedonthesocialnetworkingsite,Cloudworks(http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloudscape/view/1954).Thirdly,eighteeninterviewswereconductedwithseniorresearcherswithinthefield.TheinterviewswereconductedandinitiallyanalysedbyPaulMundin.Thefollowingmethodologywasusedtoidentify,gather,analyseandreportontheinformationfromthesetofinterviews.TheinitialsetofquestionsarosefromthediscussionsontheNetworkedLearninghot‐seatforumandthediscussionontheCloudworkssite,andfromthemesemergingfromtheliteraturereview.Thequestionswereconstructedtoexploreaninterviewee’sexperienceininterdisciplinarity,andthenatureofinterdisciplinaritybothforresearchmoregenerallyconstrued,andspecificallyinTechnologyEnhancedLearning.Thequestionscoveredthefollowingareas:• Theinterviewee’scurrentrole,theiroriginaldiscipline(undergraduatedegree),

theircareertrajectory,andanychangingofdisciplinesthroughouttheircareer.

4

• Theinterviewee’sexperienceofinterdisciplinaryresearchandwhattheyfeltwasdistinctiveaboutinterdisciplinarityinTechnologyEnhancedLearningresearch.

• Thechallengesandbenefitsofworkingininterdisciplinaryteams.

• Thefactorsthathaveinfluencedtheirapproachtoworkinginaninterdisciplinaryfashion(andinparticularthepeopleandkeyresearchtextstheydrawon).

• Thetheoreticalperspectives,methodologiesandmethodstheyuse.

• Howaretheyusingtechnologiestosupporttheirresearchpractice,bothintermsoffinding,managingandusinginformationandforcommunicativeandcollaborativeactivities?

AversionofthequestionswastrialledinternallyattheOpenUniversityandrevisedbeforetwenty‐sixpossibleintervieweecandidateswereidentified.ThefactorsforinclusionincludedtheirexperienceofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearchandinvolvementinTELresearcheitherasaresearcheroratpolicylevel.Inaddition,weattemptedtodrawintervieweesfromacrosstheHEsectorwithamixofoldandnewuniversitiesanddifferentsubjectdisciplines.Fromthelistofcandidates,eighteeninterviewswereagreedandwereset‐up.Theinterviewswereheldbetween1stFebruary2010and4thMarch2010.Eightinterviewswereheldface‐to‐face,andteninterviewswereheldoverthetelephone.Theinterviewswerecoded[IntA]to[IntR].Alloftheintervieweesagreedtotheirinterviewbeingrecorded,andfortheoutputoftheinterviewtobeusedanonymouslyaspartoftheInterdisciplinarityprojectdeliverables.EachinterviewwastranscribedintoaMSWorddocument.Theresearchteamthenjointlyreviewedthreeoftheinterviewtranscribestoagreeonasetofemergentthemes.Adocumentcontainingalistoftwenty‐twothemeswascreated.Thiscoveredinterdisciplinarityareassuchastheorigins,experiences,challenges,benefits,andmethodologiesoftheinterviewee.Theinterviewtranscriptsweremanually‘tagged’andcopiedtotheappropriatethemeorthemesinthedocument.Thetwenty‐twothemeswerethenrefinedintofivegroupingscovering:

• Originsandcareertrajectories• Influences,beliefsandtheoreticalperspectives• Methodologies,methodsandtools• ChallengestoInterdisciplinarity• ThebenefitsofInterdisciplinaryworking

ThesethemesarediscussedingreaterdetailinSectionFour.

5

3LocatingtheresearchinthewiderliteratureThissectionlocatestheresearchreportedhereinthebroaderliteratureoninterdisciplinarity.Section4discussesthefindingsfromtheinterviewdataintermsofthislargerbodyofknowledge.ThereviewofprintandonlineresearchliteraturewasprimarilyconductedbyRobertFarrow.ThekeyfocuswastogetanunderstandingofthenatureofinterdisciplinarityingeneralandtheparticularformsitcantakeinaTELresearchcontext.Fivemainthemesofrelevancetothisresearchwereevidentfromthereviewi)definitionsandkeyconcepts,ii)thechallengesofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearch,iii)epistemologicalandmethodologicalissues,iv)theuseoftechnologiestofosterinterdisciplinarityandv)capacitybuilding–interdisciplinarityinundergraduateprogrammes.Itshouldbenotedthatwedonotattemptinthisreporttoprescribeafinalanswertothesubtleandcomplexepistemologicalproblemsraisedbytheterminterdisciplinarity.Rather,ourfocusinonunderstandingthenatureofinterdisciplinarityinTELresearch.Inaddition,wewillexplorethewaysinwhichthetechnologiesthemselvesarebeingusedinTELresearchtofacilitateinterdisciplinaryworkingthroughcommunication,collaborationandnetworking.

3.1DefinitionsandkeyconceptsThisfirstsectionhelpsprovideadefinitionforinterdisciplinarity,consideringitinrelationtoindividualdisciplineknowledge.Interdisciplinaryworkingbringstogetherexpertisefromdifferentrealmsofknowledge,andappliesindividualdiscipline‐basedskillstoaspecificresearchproblem.Thismultifacetedorsyntheticapproachisoftenadvocatedbythosewhobelievethatdrawingonmultipledisciplinesislikelytoleadtoamorecomprehensiveorholisticunderstandingofcomplexproblemswhichdonotthemselvesrespectdisciplinaryboundaries.Interdisciplinaryresearchersacknowledgethatnoonedisciplinecanprovideanexhaustiveaccountofallphenomena,andthatinterdisciplinarycollaborationcanleadtofindingsthatcouldnothavebeenachievedinotherways.Successfulinterdisciplinaryprojectsarethosethattendtohaveaclearvision,andhavesafeguardstoensurethatprojectsarenotrealignedaccordingtothedisciplinaryinterestsofoneparty.Tounderstandthenatureofinterdisciplinarity,itisfirstnecessarytounderstanddisciplinarity.Inorderto‘discipline’knowledge,domainsofinquirymustbeconceptuallyseparatefromoneanothersothatknowledgecanbecreatedindiscrete,repeatableunits.Theterm‘discipline’drawsonthenotionofspecialised,valuedknowledgethatnecessarilyexcludessomeotherformsofinquiry:aconfluenceofknowledgeandpower(Moran,2010:2).Interdisciplinaryresearchworksbycombiningorrecombiningthesediscreteunitsofdata.Yetthissimplisticformulationobscuresanumberofimportantquestionsaboutthenatureandscopeofknowledge.Forinstance,thereremainsconsiderabledisagreementovertheprecisenatureofinterdisciplinarityandhowitistobedistinguishedfromotherwaysofcombiningresearch,suchastransdisciplinarity,poly‐disciplinarityandmulti‐disciplinarity.(SeeFranksetal.(2007:172‐3)foradetailedtypologyofinterdisciplinarity.)

6

7

Figure1:Typologiesofinterdisciplinaryteaching,learningandresearch(takenfromFranksetal.,2007,pp.172‐173)

8

Thelastthreehundredyearshaveseengreaterandgreaterdegreesofacademicspecialisation,withsomedisciplinesbecomingincreasinglyinaccessibletonon‐

9

specialists.Yetthetraditionaldisciplinaryboundariesthatstrengthenedinthefirsthalfofthe20thcenturygraduallygavewaytoageneralprojectofknowledgeintegrationasaresultofeducationreforminthe1960sand1970s(certainlywithinaUKcontextatleast).Thisongoingcommodificationofknowledgeiscloselylinkedtothegrowthinthecomputabilityofknowledge,andcommunicationtechnologiesincreasinglymediateandvalidatetheformsofknowledge,whicharenecessaryforthe‘knowledgeeconomy’(Oliveretal.,2007;Lyotard,1979).

3.2ThechallengesofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearchInpractice,however,‘true’interdisciplinarityisrare,andcanoftenbelittlemorethanacosmeticexercise.Achievingtrueinterdisciplinarityisdifficultforanumberofreasons,notleastbecauseacademicstendtobeverymuchrootedintheircognatedisciplineanditsassociatedepistemologicalandmethodologicaltenets.Itisdifficulttoestablishstandardsofvalidityacrosssubjectdomains,andthispresentsresearcherswithachallengeastheycanlackeffectivecriteriaforevaluatingorplanninginterdisciplinaryresearch.Becauseacademicvocabulariesandpracticesareoftendiscipline‐specific,thereremainrealchallengesaroundmanagingthetransitionbetweendisciplinaryandculturalboundaries.Speltetal.arguethatinterdisciplinarythinkingisacomplexcognitiveskill,whichintegratesdisciplinaryknowledgetoproducea‘cognitiveadvancement’thatwouldhavebeenunlikelythroughindividualdisciplinarymeans.Thus,interdisciplinarityisintegrative,andisassociatedwith‘boundary‐crossingskills…forinstance,theabilitytochangeperspectives,tosynthesizeknowledgeofdifferentdisciplines,andtocopewithcomplexity’(Speltetal.,2009:366).Aperceivedproblemwiththeincreasingshifttowardsdisciplinaryspecialisationisthatthewayknowledgeisproducedandusedwithinthemodernknowledgesocietyisincreasinglydisconnected.FrodemanandMitchumhavearguedthattheparadoxofmoderninterdisciplinarityisthat‘noattemptatinterdisciplinarityhasproducedaviableunderstandingof,orongoingcounterpointto,specialization.Instead,eacheffortatinterdisciplinarityhasservedasapreambletofurtherdisciplinaryspecializationandproduction’(2007:510).Themodernistdisciplinaryresearchphilosophy,theysuggest,canonlyovercomeitsself‐imposedepistemologicallimitsbybecomingcritical,circumscribingdisciplinaryoverproductionandmovingintodialoguewiththepublicandprivatesectorsandothercommunitystakeholders.Thisdialogicmodelmaybeunderstoodwithreferenceto‘modetwo’knowledgeproduction,whichischaracterisedbybeingcarriedoutinthecontextofapplication,bringingheterogeneousskillsandexpertisetoproblems,andbytransdisciplinarity(Nowotny,2001;Oliveretal.,2007).Thecommodificationofknowledgehasbeencomplementedbyashiftfrom‘modeone’to‘modetwo’knowledge:from‘isittrue?’to‘whatcanitdo?’(Giddens,1999citedinOliveretal.,2007:23).Nowotnymakesthecasethat,withtherightkindofcommunication,a‘feedbackloop’betweenscienceandsocietythatwillencouragemorerelevantandmoreeffectiveresearchmaybeestablished.Assuch,thebaseofthoseconsidered‘users’ofsciencemustexpandbeyondthescientificcommunityandintocontextsofapplication.

10

Advocatesofinterdisciplinaritytypicallyseeitasareflexivepractice(Romm,1998).However,thereareanumberofchallengestoanyaccountofreflexiveinterdisciplinarity.Firstly,thereistheproblemofapplyingreflexivitywhenassumptionsandvaluesoftenremainopaquetothosewhoholdthem.Secondly,effortsmustbetakentoensurethatepistemologicaldifferencesdonotsplitordiminishresearchgroupsandtheiractivities.Thirdly,thereisalwaysariskthatpoliticalorentrepreneurialinterestsmightdominatepurportedlyacademicinquiries.Fundingandpolicydriversdictatetoalargeextendwhatresearchispossible.Theshifttocommodificationofknowledgeandtheknowledgesociety(seeabove)isalsopartoftheproblem.Fourthly,thereisaneedtoconsiderandincorporate‘theimprovedfocus,breadth,andcreativity’ofinterdisciplinaryinquiry(Payne,1999:180).Blackwelletal.(2009:15‐17)reportonasuccessfulinterdisciplinaryinnovation.Theyframedthedifficultiesfacingresearchersfromdifferentdisciplinesintermsof‘boundedknowledge’:theknowledgethatiscontainedwithinadefineddisciplineand‘boundedoff’fromothers.Inordertocrosstheseboundaries,theauthorsargue,interdisciplinaryteamsneedtodevelopsharedvaluesandculture.Anumberofresearchershavestudiedthenatureofinterdisciplinarityinacademia.Traditionalapproachestounderstandingdisciplinarypracticestendtoemphasisethe‘tribalistic’waythatindividualsarebroughtintoadisciplinethroughaprocessofculturalacclimatisationorsocialisation(BecherandTrowler2001;Ylijoki2000).Brew(2008:424)suggeststhatthisso‐called‘anthropologicalapproach’over‐emphasisesnotionssuchassharedidentityorthepursuitofcommonends.Shegoesasfarassuggestingthatdisciplinarylabellingisflexible,largelyrhetorical,andoftensubordinatedtootherinstitutionalrequirements(suchasresearchassessment,orsecuringfunding).Brewarguesthatweneedtokeepourunderstandingofdisciplinaryboundaries‘open’inordertoallowforframeworksthatcanadequatelydescribeanddifferentiateinterdisciplinarity,transdisciplinarityandmultidisciplinarity.AugsburgandHenryarguedthatinterdisciplinarityinthe‘strongsense’(characterisedbypedagogicalexperimentation,andrigorousscholarship)hasbeensupplantedby‘weak’interdisciplinaritywhichonlyhastheappearanceofgenuinecross‐disciplinarycollaborationandislargelypoliticallymotivated(andisoftenmanifestedindepartmentalclosures,settingstrategieswhichadheretomarketdriventrends,andcultivatingoutsidesourcesoffunding).Specificstrategieslikelytopromoteinterdisciplinaryresearchincludemechanismstosupport‘self‐consciousnessaboutinterdisciplinarityandintegration’(AugsburgandHenry,2009:238‐239);givinginterdisciplinaryprogrammestheirownfundingstreams(eveniftheydonotexistinadedicateddepartment);andensuringthatitisclearlycommunicatedthatthistypeofresearchisnotbeingperceivedasathreattotraditionaldepartments.Thismaysuggestthattheobstaclestosuccessfulinterdisciplinarityareprimarilyinstitutional,ratherthanepistemologicalinnature.However,problemswiththe

11

methodologicalvalidityofstudiesthattranscenddisciplinaryboundariesremain.Onereasonthatthesearerarelyaddresseddirectlyisthateffectiveformsofinterdisciplinarycollaborationaresituation‐specific,andhenceunpredictable.Interdisciplinaryinquiryisbothdiverseandhighlyspecialised,andthespecialisednatureofinterdisciplinarystudymeansthatitishardtodescribegeneralrulesforeffectiveinterdisciplinarity.Somedisciplines(orcombinationsofdisciplines)aremorecompatiblewitheachotherbecausetheyworkfromsimilarassumptions.Forthoseinterdisciplinaryconfigurationswhichincorporatelesscompatiblemethodologies,however,theproblemsarecompounded.Anotherwayinwhichissuessurroundinginterdisciplinarityhavecometotheforeisindebatesoveracademicfreedom.Withtheboundariesbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsbecomingincreasinglyunclear,theacademicfreedomsonceguaranteedbyclassicalLiberalismareincreasinglymarginalisedinfavourofentrepreneurialactivityandtheempowermentofmanagers(Slaughter,2007).Workingwithinasingledisciplinemeansbeingsubjecttoincreasinglyinflexibleinstitutionalrules:butoncereleasedfromdisciplinarycontexts,differentkindsofresearchquestionsandmethodsbecomeavailabletoresearchers,whoarethusabletotakemorecriticalattitudestowardsinstitutionalanddisciplinarystructures.However,supportingandfosteringsuchinterdisciplinaryapproachesremainsanintransigentproblem.Becauseinterdisciplinarityneednotrespectthelong‐standingtraditionsofsubjectdisciplines,itissometimesreferredtoasa‘deviant’or‘transgressive’formofinquiry(Nowotny,2001).AccordingtoMoran,oneofthevirtuesofinterdisciplinarityisitsabilitytodisruptandchallengethe‘deceptivesmoothness’ofthedisciplines(particularlythenotionthatthesciencesrepresentavalue‐neutralformofinquiry).Thevisionofinterdisciplinaritysubsequentlyendorsedisawayoflivingwiththedisciplinesmorecriticallyandself‐consciously,recognizingthattheirmostbasicassumptionscanalwaysbechallengedorreinvigoratedfromelsewhere.Thecorollarytothisisthatacademicsworkingwithinestablisheddisciplinesneedtoremain‘permanentlyawareoftheintellectualandinstitutionalconstraintswithinwhichtheyareworking,andopentodifferentwaysofrepresentingandunderstandingtheirworld’(Moran,2010:181).However,thetransgressivequalitiesofinterdisciplinarityraiseproblemsforgaugingvalidityandqualityassessment:effectivequalitycontrolisnormallyensuredbydisciplinarystandards,butthesearepreciselywhataresubvertedbytransdisciplinarity.Lattuca(2001:14‐15)notesthatthetendencytowardacademicspecialisationamongdisciplinaryresearchersissetagainstagrowingboldnessamonginterdisciplinaryresearcherstodemolishdisciplinaryboundaries.Forinterdisciplinaritytosucceed,Lattucasuggests,weneedtoreviseourdefinitionsofinterdisciplinarityandconstructabetterunderstandingofinterdisciplinarywork,especiallyinlightoftheclaim(Klein,1990)thatthemajorityofliteratureoninterdisciplinarityislargelyanecdotalratherthanempiricallygroundedorepistemologicallyreflective.

12

Fromtheperspectiveof‘transgressive’interdisciplinarity,thetraditionalvisionofinterdisciplinaritysupportedbyopen‐mindedness,inclusivityandtolerance(e.g.Szostak,2007)mayseemnaïve.Butthesearesimplytwoperspectiveswithinamuchwiderdebateabouttheopportunities,challengesandvalidityofinterdisciplinaryresearch.

3.3EpistemologicalandmethodologicalissuesDespitethefactthattheideaofsuccessfulinterdisciplinarityhasbecomewidelyacceptedacrossacademia,interdisciplinarityrarelyfulfilsitspromiseinpractice(seeKlein,1990:111‐118forabriefhistoryofinterdisciplinarity).Tosomeextent,thisisbecauseacademicstendtoremainweddedtotheircognatedisciplinarymindsets,andrarelyembracethekindofepistemologicalormethodologicalholismrequiredoftrulyinterdisciplinaryresearchers.Afurthercompoundingfactoristhattherehasbeenrelativelylittleresearchintohowtofosterandpromoteinterdisciplinaryresearchgroups.Thechallengesfacinginterdisciplinaryresearchincludethewaythatdisciplinarynormsandacultureofspecialisationhavebeenembeddedinhighereducation,thedifficultiessurroundinganyattempttodefineinterdisciplinarity,establishingalternativeformsofpeerreview,theproblemofobtainingconsensusamongresearchersfromdifferentdisciplines,theneedforacommonlanguagethatcanfacilitatereachingmutualunderstanding,andthedifficultiesofsecuringfinancialandinstitutionalsupportforinterdisciplinaryresearch.Achievingeffectiveco‐operationbetweendifferentspecialistsororganisationsthusnecessitateseffectivemethodsforcommunication,collaborationandevaluation.Thecomplexityanddiversityofcontemporaryresearchmeansthatdisciplinesareoftenbroughttogetheraroundasingleresearchquestion,butdisciplinarypracticesareseldomproperlyunderstoodoutsideofthecommunitieswithinwhichtheyusuallytakeplace.Thisisoneprominentreasonwhythefamiliarmechanismsofdisciplinaryacademiacanbesodifficulttotranscend.Itisunreasonabletoexpectinterdisciplinaryresearcherstomastermorethanonedisciplinetothesamestandardthatadisciplinaryresearcherwouldbeexpectedtoattain.Disciplinaryexpertsmaybeusefulforassessingdisciplinarycontributions,butnottherelationshipsbetweenthecontributionsofthedifferentresearchers,ormaterialsfromoutsidetheirhomediscipline:interdisciplinaryactivitiesshouldbe“judgedonhowwelltheyachievetheirobjectivesandhowwelltheyintegrateknowledge”(Østreng,2010:67).Consequently,interdisciplinaryresearchersneedtoengagewithcomplexepistemologicalandmethodologicalquestionsabouttheemergence,status,andvalidityofknowledge.Sincetheseconstitutethebackgroundtoagivendiscipline–indeed,toalargeextentthesearewhatdefineadiscipline–theyarerarelythefocusofthosewhoworksolelywithinparticulardisciplinaryboundaries.Lunca(1996)suggeststhattheshortcomingsofmostinterdisciplinaryresearchmaybelargelyexplainedwithreferencetolevelsofawarenessaboutthekindofcognitiveandepistemologicalcommitmentsmadewithindisciplines.Morespecifically,there

13

aretwoissuesofparticularimportanceforinterdisciplinarity.Firstly,thereisthequestionofhowtogenerateaprocedurefordecidinghowtoapproachparticularproblemsthattranscenddisciplinaryborders.Secondly,itisnecessarytofindawayofreconcilingthedisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryapproachestotheresearchquestioninordertorenderthemcompatible.Asaresult,researcherscanimprovetheinterdisciplinarityoftheirworkby“learningthelanguageoftheepistemological,logicalandphilosophicalanalysisoftheirspeciality”which“willenablethemtoenterintointerdisciplinarycollaboration”(Lunca,1996:ii‐iii).Thisprocess,drivenbytheaimofincreasingsolvabilitythroughtranslatingdisciplinarylanguages,iswhatLuncareferstoas‘interdisciplinarisation’(Ibid.,14).Holleyraisestheworrythatthepotentialsofinterdisciplinaryresearchareoftenoverstatedintheliterature,inspiteofthelanguagethatsurroundsit:”interdisciplinaryresearchtopics”,shewrites,”arenotinherentlyinnovative,timely,orapplicabletocontemporaryproblems”.(Holley,2009:64)Interdisciplinaritymustconstantlydemonstratethewayinwhichitaddsvaluetodisciplinaryinquiryifitistoliveuptoitspotentialastheformofinvestigationbestsuitedtoaddressingthecomplexityofcontemporaryintellectualproblems.Inadditiontotheseconcernssurroundingtheinherentacademicworthofinterdisciplinarity,thereareanumberofissuesarisebecauseofthetraditionalstructuralorganisationofuniversitiesandhowtheyaremanaged.Onthewhole,universitiesareorganisedaroundtraditionaldisciplineboundariesandnewemergingresearchfieldsorthosethatadoptaninterdisciplinaryapproachdonoteasilysitwithinthistraditionalstructure.Conole,WhiteandOliver(2007:77)charttheemergenceofe‐learningasaresearchfieldandnotethetensionsthiscreatedonexistingstructures,notingtheconstantchangingstructuresandfunctions:”[j]obtitlesandstructuralunitswithinsupportserviceshavebeeninaconstantstateoffluxinthelastfewdecadesasinstitutionsstruggletokeepupwiththeimpactofchangingtechnologies”.Itseemsevidentthatthefutureofanysuccessfulinterdisciplinarityisdependentupontherelationshipsinterdisciplinarystudieshaswithotherdepartmentsandtheadministrativestructuresoftheuniversity,particularlyintheformofseniormanagerswhocanchampionandsupportinterdisciplinaryresearch.However,thespecificorganizationalformsthatwouldgiveinterdisciplinaritythebestchanceforbeingeffectiveremainunclear.

3.4TheuseoftechnologiestofosterinterdisciplinarityThereareanumberofwaysinwhichtechnologiescouldsupportinterdisciplinarycollaboration.Section4.3willarticulatethewiderangeoftoolsthatTELresearchersareusingtosupportboththecollectionandanalysisofdata,aswellasformoregeneralcommunicationandcollaboration.Thissectionprovidesanoverviewofthemoregeneralusesoftoolsevidentinthebroaderliterature.AtaxonomyderivedbyConole(2006)providesaclassificationoftoolsaccordingtouse:text/datamanipulation,presentation/dissemination,dataanalysis,informationseeking/handling,storing/managinginformation,personalmanagement,projectmanagement,communication,visualisation/brainstorming,guidance/support.Not

14

surprisinglywordprocessing,emailandinternettechnologiesemergedasthetoolsthathadmadethemostsignificantdifferences;changingthewaypeoplecreateanddistributeinformation,alteringorganisationalstructuresandassociatedroleswithsomerolesdisappearingandnewprofessionsemerging,andarguablyevenalteringtheverynatureandworthofknowledgeitself.Returningtothelistafewyearslater,Conole(Forthcoming,2010)demonstratedtheimpactofWeb2.0technologies,findingmoreevidenceofcollectiveusedoftoolsonline(suchasGoogleDocsorwikisforco‐creatingtexts,SlidesharefordistributingPowerpointpresentationsandsocialmediatoolsforcommunicationandnetworking).Inadditiontocreatingandconnectingonlineresearchcommunities,thesetoolsoffernewpossibilitiesforparticipatoryorcollaborativedesign.Communicationtechnologiesareuniquelyabletocreatefeelingsofinterconnectednessandcommunityovergeographicaldistance;makingiteasierforstakeholderstohavetheirvoicesheard.Digitalrepositoriesandotheronlinetoolsmeanresearchresultscannowbemadeavailabletoamuchwideraudiencethaninthepast.Openaccesspracticesareincreasinglyevident.Forexample,theOpenEducationalResourcemovementinteachinghasbeenmirroredintheresearchcommunitybytheOpenAccessInitiative,wherebyresearchersarechoosingtomaketheirresearchpublicationsfreelyavailableviainstitutionalresearchrepositories;thuschallengingtraditionalpublicationchannels,suchasjournalsandbooks.Someresearchersareevengoingastepfurtherandadvocatingthenotionofmakingoriginal,rawdatapublicallyavailableforscrutinyandmanipulationbyothers.Thesocalled‘Web2.0’technologiesinparticularfosterco‐constructionofknowledgeandactiveuserengagement,promptingsomeresearcherstochoosethesetechnologiesastheirpreferredmechanismofdisseminationovertraditionalrecognisedpublicationroutes(ConoleandAlevizou,2010).Technologyoffersanobviouswaytobreakdownthedisciplinaryboundariesintraditionalacademicpracticebecauseitisthemediumthroughwhichresearchfindingsaretranslatedintoculturalproducts.Asbothmaterialobjectsandnarrativedevices,technologieshaveasmuchtodowithre‐imaginingandpresentingnormativeaccountsofsocietyastheydowithprovidinglocalsolutionstopracticalproblems(Moran,2010).Seeninthislight,thesphereof‘techno‐culture’showsthatscienceisunavoidablyinterdisciplinarybecauseitisalwayspartofothernarrativesandother(putativelynon‐scientific)formsofknowledgeandinquiry.Morannotesthatallofthemajordevelopmentsincommunicationtechnology–includingbooks,photography,radio,television,thecomputerandtheinternet–haveallinfluencedthewriting,publication,marketinganddistributionofacademic‘texts’(construedaspartofwidereconomicandculturalpractices).Arguablytheaffordancesofnewtechnologiesoffersomethingofastepchange;providingawidevarietyofdifferentwaysinwhichacademicscannowcommunicate,collaborate,critiqueandshareknowledge.Howevertheeffectiveuseofnewtechnologiesrequiresnewformsofliteraciesandnewusesoftechnology(Jenkins,2009),aswellasaconsciousunderstandingonthepartoftheresearcherastowhatkindofdigitalidentitytheywanttoportray.The

15

developmentfromprint‐basedcommunicationtopluralanddiverseinformationmediahasledtocallsfromeducationaltheoristsforare‐evaluationoftraditionalconceptsofliteracyandteachingandlearningrelationsinlightoftechnologicallymediatedaccesstoandrelationswithknowledge(Luke,2003).ThesuggestionmadebyCook‐SatherandShore(2007)isthattoremedytheover‐specialisationofdisciplinaryresearch,wemustthinkoftheuniversity‘faculty’asamuchwidergroup–includingstaffandstudents–allinvolvedinthesameprocessofknowledgeproduction.Theauthorssupportthisviewwithacasestudyconcerninganinterdisciplinarysummerschoolwhereprofessorswererequiredtoreworkandadaptthesyllabionthebasisofcollaborationwithlibrarians,informationtechnologists,and(disciplinary)academics.Underthissystem,considerableimportancewasplacedonovercomingbarrierstocommunication,andonthevalueofguaranteeingtherelationshipsbetweenfaculty,student,librarian,andtechnologistthataremostappropriateforinterdisciplinarity.Informationtechnologiescanhelptheexchangeofideasanddatatoremainfocused,meaningfulandpertinent.Oneimplicationofproceduralapproachestointerdisciplinaritylikethisoneisthatidealformsofinterdisciplinarycollaborationareuniqueandunpredictable.Sincetheycannotbeprescribedinadvance,thetoolsandtechnologiesspecifictooneprojectareunlikelytobeofuseinanotherwithoutbeingadaptedorrethought.Østreng(2010)suggests,bycontrast,thatinterdisciplinarycollaborationcanbesupportedbyanumberofsharedmethodologies.Theseincludeconcepts,methodsandtheoriesoriginatingfromspecificdisciplines.Ofparticularimportance,heargues,aremethodologiesthattranscendthequalitative/quantitativedistinction.Inanycase,it’sclearthatcommunicationandcollaborationtoolsofamoregeneralnatureremainusefultoanyinterdisciplinaryproject.Educationalistshavepresentedanumberofpracticalsuggestionsforfacilitatinginterdisciplinaryresearch.Theseinclude:clearlydefiningthescopeofinterdisciplinaryresearchprojects;encouragingpersonalrelationshipsandresearchcommunitiesacrossdisciplinaryfields;settingupdedicatedinterdisciplinaryresearchareasorfaculties,andintegratinginterdisciplinarityintothestructuralandculturalprioritiesoftheuniversity;andensuringthatinterdisciplinaryprojectsareadequatelysupportedfinancially.Oneofthemainimpactsofrecentdevelopmentsincommunicationtechnologyisthegrowingrapidityoflinguisticchange,resultingfromthebreakdownofgeographic,generational,andculturalbarriersthatisbeingfacilitatedbyonlinetechnologies.AlthoughLukedoesnotmakethefollowingsuggestionwithexplicitreferencetointerdisciplinaryresearch,itdoesneatlyencapsulatehowinterdisciplinaritycouldworkwithinaTELcontext:‘[…]indigitalknowledgeandnetworkedenvironments,criticalunderstandingsoftherelationsbetweenideas,theirsourcesandhistories,intertextualreferencesandconsequences,areasimportantifnotmoresothanmastery,reproduction,andrecombinationofdiscretefactsorunitsofinformation’.(Luke,2003:400)Therightkindofcommunicationforinterdisciplinarycollaborationislikelytofeaturea‘critical’ITliteracyatitsheart.

16

ThiswouldgobeyondITskillstraining,andincludereflectionsonmetaknowledge,theeffectiveuseofcollaborativetoolsandproblem‐basedlearning,aswellasacriticalanalysisoftheculturalandpoliticalcontextswithinwhichinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesareused.Thesenewformsofcomputer‐mediatedcommunicationemphasize‘intertextuality,transculturalcommunication,intermediality,metamedia,andmultimodalmultiliteracy’(Ibid.,401‐402).Lukearguesthatthemultimedia,multimodal,rhizomaticandintegrativefeaturesofcontemporaryICTarebasedonakindof‘horizontal’or‘lateral’cognitivemobilityincontrasttothe‘vertical’or‘disciplinary’cognitivemobilityassociatedwithtraditionalformsofacademicinquiry.Inadditiontofacilitatingcommunication,technologiescanalsobeusetosupportthemanagementandanalysisofresearchinavarietyofways.Therearenowawealthofsoftwaretoolsfororganisingandanalysingbothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchdata.Clearlysuchtoolsarehelpfulinthattheyfreetheresearcherfromthemoremundaneaspectsofmanagingdata,howeverarguablytheyalsochangethewayinwhichtheresearcherisinteractingwithandhenceunderstandingthedata.Technologiesalsoplayanimportantroleintermsofbroaderdisseminationofresearchfindingsandcanbeusedtoassesstheimpactanddisseminationofinterdisciplinaryresearch.Theprintedbookorjournalarticleisnowjustpartofaspectrumofdifferentdisseminationmechanismsacademicscanuse–blogs,wikis,socialnetworkingsitesandevenTwitternowoffercomplementarymodesofcommunication.MostimportantlytheseWeb2.0technologiescanhelpspreadresearchfindingsfarmorequicklythattraditionalpublicationroutes.Furthermorebecauseoftheirinter‐connectednaturetheyofferthepossibilityofongoinginteractionanddialoguebetweentheresearcherandthebroadercommunity.Leydesdorff(2007)proposestheconceptof‘betweennesscentrality’asanindicator(inlocalcitationenvironmentsandafternormalisation)oftheinterdisciplinarityofjournals.Theideaof‘betweennessasameasureofcentrality’isidentifiedwithSocialNetworkAnalysis(Freeman,1977)where‘betweenness’isameasureofthefrequencywithwhichanodeislocatedontheshortestpathbetweenothernodesonthenetwork.Thisisthenappliedtoany‘citationmatrix’toindicatetheextenttowhichapieceofresearchhasinfluencedresearchersfromdifferentdisciplines.Dron(2007)assessedthepotentialofsocialsoftware(blogs,wikis,linksharing,tagging,socialnetworking)ineducationalcontexts.Hisfocusisontheuseofthesetoolsforlearners,butthegeneralargumentshemakesarerelevanthere,particularlyifresearchersshiftingfromsingledisciplinarytointerdisciplinaryperspectivesisseeasaformof‘professionallearning’.Theauthor’stheoryof‘transactionalcontrol’isarefinementofMoore’stheoryoftransactionaldistanceindistancelearning,andemphasisestheextenttowhichdifferentpartiesexercisecontroloverthelearningsituation.Socialsoftwareallowsforthecollectivecreationofmeaning,sometimesinunexpectedways.Theyallowlearnerstoexercisecontroloverthelearningtrajectorybasedontheemergentpropertiesofthegroupactivityasawhole.Dronidentifiestendesignprinciplesforeducationalsocialsoftwarethatmeetstheneedsoflearners.Theseare:theprincipleofadaptability(compatibility);

17

theprincipleofevolvability(unfixedsystems);theprincipleofparcellation(connectionsbetweensystemsshouldemergeandnotbeprescribed);theprincipleoftrust(goodwill);theprincipleofstigmergy(usingsignstoguide,notconstrain);theprincipleofcontext(awarenessofvirtualecosystems);theprincipleofconstraint(awarenessofwhatisexcluded);theprincipleofsociability;theprincipleofconnectivity(interconnectedness);andtheprincipleofscale(wheresmalliterationsunderpinlargerones).Translatingsuchprinciplesintopracticeremainsachallengeforeducationaltechnologists.

3.5Capacitybuilding‐interdisciplinarityinundergraduateprogrammesDevelopinginterdisciplinarityattheundergraduatelevelcanbeseenasonestrategyforcapacitybuildingandcreatingtheinterdisciplinaryresearchersoftomorrow.Althoughinterdisciplinaryteachinghasundoubtedlybeendevelopedandexploredmorethaninterdisciplinarityinresearch–particularlyintheUSA,where‘interdisciplinary’degreesarerelativelycommonatliberalartscolleges–itremainsthecasethatthegenuinelyinterdisciplinaryuseofICTineducationispresentlyencouragedbyasmallnumberofenthusiastswithinsubjectspecialisms(Sefton‐Green,1999).Interdisciplinaryprogrammesareoftencaughtupinthewidereconomicandpoliticalstrugglesoftheuniversityanditsinstitutions.AugsburgandHenrycharacterisethediscourseofinterdisciplinarityasa“discourseofuncertaintyandchange”(2009:2),andarguethatthecombinationofthe“politicsofinterdisciplinarity”andawidespreadtendencytodisciplinaryhegemonyexplainswhyinterdisciplinarysyllabihavegenerallyfailedtofindapermanentplaceinuniversitycurricula(Ibid.,227).Existingresearchintointerdisciplinaryteachingsuggeststhatsuccessesaretypicallysupportedbyawidercultureofcollaboration.Someeducatorscontinuetodiscouragedisciplinaryprejudicesbygroupingacademicstaffalongmultidisciplinarylinestoseparatethemfromtheiroriginaldisciplines;whatBraddocketal.(1994)refertoasthe‘lifeboatmodel’.Otherstrategiestopromoteinteractionbetweenstaffincludethesettingupofco‐operativeprogrammes,provisionofasharedcommonroom,theestablishmentofappliedresearchteams,andtherandomallocationofoffices,ratherthanonfixeddisciplineboundaries.Thereisevidencetosuggestthattheseapproachescancontributeto“thecontinuedcommunication,recognitionandacknowledgementofinterdisciplinaryachievements,structuresandoutcomes”,whileaffordingteachersasmuchautonomyaspossible(Franksetal.,2007:182).Helpingacademicsmakebetteruseoftechnologiesintheirteachingisoneexampleofwhereaninterdisciplinaryapproachhasbeenadopted.ThestateofConnecticutpromotedatrainingprogrammeineducationaltechnologyfocusedonwaysinwhicheducatorscanmakeuseofeducationaltechnology.Theadvancedcomponentsofthecoursearedesignedtocrossdisciplinaryboundaries.Thethreemainprinciplesuponwhichtheprogrammeisbasedare:evidence‐baseddecisionmaking;engagementwitheducatorsacrosstheartsandscience;andthedevelopmentofan

18

inductionprogrammetoshareknowledge(Moss,OsbornandKaufman,2008).Academicsfromdifferentdepartmentshadtocollaboratetoconstructmeaningfullearningenvironments.Workingacrossdisciplineboundariesinthisteachingcontextalsohelpedthemdeveloptheskillsneededtoundertakeinterdisciplinaryresearch.Moregenerally,promotinginterdisciplinarityisseenasbeneficialinanumberofrespects.AccordingtoSzostak(2007),interdisciplinarycoursesencouragestudentstomakeconnectionsbetweendifferentcoursesandhelpthemtorecognisethedifferentinsightsthatemergefromdifferentdisciplines.Theylearnhowtoresolveconflictsbetweendisciplinesanditgivesthemexperienceofhowtoworkininterdisciplinarycontexts.Ultimately,theseinterdisciplinarycoursesprovideafoundationforfuturegenerationsofresearchers,whowillbemorelikely,havethenecessaryskillstoundertakeinterdisciplinaryresearch.

3.6TheonlinediscussionforaTheprevioussectionshaveoutlinedsomeofthekeycharacteristicsofinterdisciplinarity,debatesoveritsdefinition,andhowitrelatestosingle‐disciplineresearch.Theemergentpictureshowsboththebenefitsandchallengesofattemptingtodointerdisciplinaryresearch.Thereviewalsoexploredhownewtechnologiesarebeingusedtosupportinterdisciplinarypractices.Thereviewalsohighlightsthefactthatdoinginterdisciplinaryresearchrequiresaparticularskillssetandhencethelastsectiondiscussedoneaspectofcapacitybuilding,namelyexamplesofhowinterdisciplinarypracticesarebeingintroducedattheundergraduatelevel.ThesethemeswillbereturnedtointhediscussionsaroundtheinterviewdatainSection4.Inthefinalpartofthissection,wesummarisesomeofthediscussionsfromtheonlinefora,showinghowthethemesfromtheliteraturereviewalsoemergedintheinterviewdata.Anumberofcharacteristicswereidentifiedasbeingneededtodointerdisciplinaryresearch:theabilitytobeopentounfamiliarmethodologies,thecollectivedevelopmentofasharedvisionandtheabilitytobeflexiblewerethethreemostimportancecharacteristicscited.Oneinterestingperceptionwasthat,becauseTELmanyresearcherstypicallycomefromotherdisciplines,thattheymaybelesslikelytobeattachedtodiscipline‐specificassumptionsandmethodologies.Anumberofstrategiesforgoodworkingpracticeweresuggested.Firstly,thatresearchersneedtomakeaneffortintermsofunderstandingeachother’slanguage.Secondly,specificgoalsforcollaborationmustbeset.Thirdly,thereneedstobeasharedconsensusaboutthemethodologiesadopted.Someofthebenefitsofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearchcitedwere:

• Overcomingthe‘tunnelvision’thatcanaffectthoseentrenchedindisciplinarymindsets

• Workingtowardsunifiedtheorieswhichprovidegreaterexplanatorypowerwhilemakingfewermethodologicalassumptions

• Expandingstakeholderbasebyofferingdifferentperspectivesonissues

19

• Personalisation/customisationofteachingandlearningprogrammes

• Bringingtogetherexpertiseacrossdifferent(andpotentiallydiverse)domains

• Possibilitiesformakingspecialuseofresearcherswithuniqueskillcombinations

• Recognitionthatnoonedisciplineprovidesanexhaustiveaccountofphenomena

• Interdisciplinarycollaboration,asameansoflearningnewthings,drawingonexpertisefromotherdisciplines

• Organisingresearchpartnersandprojectsaccordingtoaclearvisionwhichprovidesfocustodisparateactivities

Andsimilarlysomeofthesuggestedbarrierstointerdisciplinaryactivitiesincluded:

• Institutionalconstraints(andanoutmodedinstitutionalmodelofeducation)

• Instancesofinterdisciplinarityarenotmerelycosmetic

• Difficultyinagreeingonmethodologiesandstandardsofvalidityacrosssubjectareas

• Difficultyinprovidingadequatetrainingforgraduatestudentsandpostdoctoralscholars

• Difficultyinprovidingeffectivecriteriaforevaluatinginterdisciplinaryresearch

• Mismatchbetweennewpracticesandpopularmethodologies/metrics

• Learningtotakeupreflectivedistancefromone’scorediscipline’

• Preservingresearchfocus

• Managingtransitionsbetweendisciplinaryandculturalboundaries

• Difficultyincreatingrobustandcoherentframeworksandtoolswhichaccommodatedifferentlevelsandformsofanalysis

• Consolidation/standardisationofvocabularies

• Frameworksforsynthesisingmicro/meso/macroperspectives;combiningqualitativeandquantitativeresearchdata

• Distinguishinginter‐disciplinarityfrommulti‐disciplinarity

• Lackofintellectualormethodological‘openness’amongacademics

• Thereisariskthatindividualinstitutionalorpersonalaimsmaysupersedetheoverallprojectgoal.

Herearesomeofthekeyquestionsandchallengesforinterdisciplinaryresearchthatarose:

• Whatarethekeyguidelinesforsupportingteam‐workinaninterdisciplinarysetting?

20

• Howcanwemakebestuseofthetechnologyavailabletoustosupportgoodcommunicationandcollaborationwhilstatthesametimeavoidoverwhelmingpartnerswithanarrayofunfamiliartechnologies?

• Whatkindofsafeguardsmighthelpensurethatinterdisciplinaryresearchprojectsremainfocused–andnotrealignedtothedisciplinaryinterestsofaparticularacademic(suchasthePrincipalInvestigator)?

• Aretheresomeresearchtopicsthatlendthemselvesmorereadilytointerdisciplinaryresearchthanothers?

• Isinterdisciplinaritybettersuitedtolonger‐term(orlarger‐scale)researchprojects?

• Intermsoflearning,howexplicitdoesthefocusoninterdisciplinarityneedtobe?Dopeopleneedtoknowiftheyareinvolvedininterdisciplinarylearning,orcouldthisdistractfromtheirownlearningexperiences?Shouldmodelsofinterdisciplinaritybediscussedbylearners,orshouldtheysimplyinformlessondesign,etc.?

• Donewdisciplinesarisefromthecombinationsofdifferentdisciplines,orshouldtheseallbereferredtoas‘interdisciplinary’?

4PerspectivesoninterdisciplinarityfromTELresearchersThedataderivedfromtheinterviewscomplementthematerialcollectedthroughtheliteraturereviewandtheopenconsultationworkthroughtheNetworkedLearninghotseatandonCloudworks.Eighteeninterviewswerecarriedoutwithacademicsthathaveexperienceofinterdisciplinaryworkingintheirsubjectareas,andmorespecificallyhaveexperienceofinterdisciplinaryworkinginTechnologyEnhancedLearningresearch.ThemethodologyisdescribedinSection2.Keyfindingsfromtheinterviewsarediscussedhere.

4.1OriginsandcurrentacademicrolesThebreakdownoftheeighteenintervieweesby‘origin’orundergraduatedisciplineisgiveninthefigurebelow.ItshowsthediversityofbackgroundandcurrentspreadofthoseworkinginTELresearch.Howeveritisnotablehowmanyoftheresearchershaveasciencebackground.Itisinterestingtoreflectonthereasonswhysuchatrendmightexist.Onepossibleexplanationisthatearlyworkoncomputer‐assistedlearningmaterials,e‐assessmentandearlyuseofthewebwaspioneeredinthesciencesubjectareas.Forexample,chemistrywasoneofthefirstsubjectareastofullyexploittheuseofinteractive,3DmoleculesusingaprogrammecalledRasmol(e.g.,Lancaster,2000)andtherearemanyexcellentexamplesofinteractivecomputer‐basedpackagesforteachingsciencegenerally(e.g.,Scanlonetal.,1993;Scanlonetal.,2004).Intermsofcurrentlocation,theresearchersarespreadacrossarangeofdifferentdepartments;somearelocatedinindividualcognatedisciplinedepartments(likeeducationorcomputerscience),othersarelocatedinwhatmightbetermed‘centralservices’andoneislocatedinasubjectarea(dentaleducation).

21

Collectively,thereforetheTELfieldisdrawingonarichrangeoftheoreticalperspectivesandmethodologies.Allofthoseinterviewedstatedthattheyhadhadsomeexperienceofworkinginarangeofdisciplinesduringtheircareertrajectoriesfromtheiroriginaldisciplinetotheircurrentrole.Andfeltthatexposuretoworkinginmultidisciplinarycontextswasvaluable.

‘I’vepickedupsomethingfromallofthem.’[IntM]

Someintervieweesidentifiedthesignificanceoftheir‘home’[IntI]discipline,althoughitisworthcounteringthatotherssawitaslessimportant.

‘Oneofourfindingswastherealsignificanceofahomediscipline,thatmostpeopleareactiveinterdisciplinaryresearchers,haveveryclearsignsthattheyhavebeenimprintedwiththelegacyoftheirfirstundergraduatedegree.’[IntI]

ThetensionbetweentheindividualdisciplineperspectivesandtheholisticcognitiveskillsnecessaryforaninterdisciplinaritymindsetwereevidentthroughtheinterviewswiththeTELresearchers,whorecognisedtheneedtobothdrawon–andmovebeyond–theiroriginaldisciplines.EchoingSpeltetal.’sargument(Speltetal.,2009)thatinterdisciplinarythinkingisacomplexcognitiveskill.Thevalueofthe‘home’[IntI]disciplineseemedtocentreonthewaysinwhichithelpedtheindividualframetheirthinking–seeingpatterns,oscillatingbetweentextual,mathematicalandvisualrepresentationandmakingsenseoutofcomplexity:

‘Geographersarereallygoodatsynthesisingkeyideasoutofcomplexdata…thetraditionisthatgeographersmakethebestmanagers.’[IntL]‘Computerscientistswhentheydorequirementscaptureanddevelopasystemanddevelopit,theyevaluateusingparadigmsandmethods…thatwouldbequitedifferentfrompsychologistsandlogicians.’[IntP]

22

Frommathematics…‘Istilltendtoseepatterns.’[IntC]Fromchemistry‘I’malwaystryingtoclassifyandtaxonomisethings…andbeingabletoseethingsinthreedimensions.’[IntA]‘ParticularlytheAI(artificialintelligence)background…it’sprobablythecasethatmostoftheresearchIdoisn’twhatyoumightstrictlyseeasartificialintelligencebutitinfluencesthewayyouthink.’[IntQ]‘Iamonlyjuststartingtorealise…howmuchofthekindofcomputersciencebackgroundIoftenbringwithme.’[IntQ]

AlignmentwiththeirconceptionsandviewsoftheworldfromtheirbackgroundwithinthecontextofdoingTELresearchisattheheartofmuchofwhatdefinesTELinterdisciplinarity.Furthermore,manyoftheintervieweesalsofeltthat,broadlyconstrued,educationisnecessarilyaninterdisciplinaryendeavour.

‘Iwouldtaketheviewthatalmostanyteamwhichisfocusedoneducationisalmostbydefinitioninterdisciplinary,becausepeoplecometoitfromquitediversebackgrounds.’[IntL]‘We’realwayssayingitbuteducationisalreadyinterdisciplinary.’[IntK]‘Becauseinawayeducationisveryinterdisciplinaryinitsownrightisn’tit?Inthatyougetpeoplewhocometoeducationfromthepsychologybackgroundwhohavealsoperhapsabackgroundin,youknow,learningtheoriesorevenexperimentalpsychologistsintermsof,youknow,verynarrowperspectivesonlearning,forexample.Andthenyougetpeoplewhocomefromasociologybackground,whocomefromaphilosophyeducationbackground.’[IntQ]

AndthereforeresearchersinthefieldneedtoadoptaninterdisciplinaryapproachtoTechnologyEnhancedLearning.

‘SoIthinkit’sinterestinginthateducationintheTELpartoftheequationisinitselfinterdisciplinary.’[IntQ]

Intervieweeswerekeentostressthewaysinwhichtraditionalsubjectsalreadyaccommodateadegreeofintellectualdiversity,andthatbeinginterdisciplinaryforsomewasinherentintheacademicworktheyundertook.

Psychology–‘Ienjoyedtherangeoftopicsthatitallowedmetostudy,perceptionandindividualdifferencesandcognitionandsocialpsychologyandpsycholinguistics.’[IntP]

23

ArtificialIntelligence–‘broughttogetherallmypsychology,myeducationandmyinterestincomputing,allintosortofonefocus.’[IntP]Geography–‘Isprobablyinareasonablyeasypositionthere,becauseofthediversitywithinthesubject.’[IntH]Geography–‘Youcan’treallyworkinamoderngeographydepartmentwithouthavingtoaccommodatequitewhatinothercasesmightbe…greaterbreadththatwouldcrossotherinterdisciplinarydivides.’[IntH]Education–‘Ithinkisessentiallyinterdisciplinary,soaspartofthat…wewouldbereadingtheworkofapsychologist,butImightalsobereadingtheworkofsociologists.’[Intk]Education–‘Isalreadyinterdisciplinary,becausewehavepeoplewhocomefromcriticaltheorybackgrounds,orcounsellingbackgrounds,ornarrativemethodology.’[IntK]ComputerScienceandArtificialIntelligence‐‘withintheschoolofCognitiveandComputerScience…wasinterdisciplinaryatcore.’[IntQ]

Theintervieweeswereselectedbecauseoftheirexperienceininterdisciplinaryresearchinageneralcontext,andspecificallyinrelationtotheirexperiencesofworkingininterdisciplinaryteamsinTechnologyEnhancedLearningresearch.Whentheywereaskedaboutthedistinctivenessofworkinginterdisciplinarity,anumberofthemesemerged.Firstly,asarelativelynewfield,TELresearchhasattractedpeoplefromdifferentdisciplines,eachbringingwiththemdifferenttheoreticalandmethodologicalperspectives.SeealsoConoleandOliver(2007:1‐15).Secondly,TELresearchbyitsnatureiscomplex,andisconcernedwithimprovingeducationthroughuseoftechnology–itthereforeneedstodrawbothonsubjectareasconcernedwithlearningandteaching(education,psychology,etc.)andthoseconcernedwithtechnology(computersciences,informationsciencesetc.),aswellasunderstandingthelocalnuancesandculturaldifferencesacrossdifferentsubjectdomains.BringingthesedifferentaspectstogethereffectivelyisakeychallengeofTELresearchandthereforeitneedsthedifferentinterdisciplinaryperspectivestounderstandit;i.e.interdisciplinarityisacorefacetofTELresearch.IfTELresearchisgoingtowork,ithastobeinterdisciplinaryandpeopleneedtobringawiderangeofdifferentskills,perspectivesandresearchtoolstobearuponaparticularproblem.ManyfeltthatinterdisciplinaryapproachestoTELresearchweresuperiortosingledisciplineapproachesbecausetheybringtogetheraproductivemixtureofperspectivesandencouragedebate.Thirdly,therearehugeandinterestingcognitive,technicalandsocialquestionssurroundingthedeliveryoftechnologyenhancedlearning.Forexample,howshould

24

thecognitiveandthesocialbeintegrated?Howshouldknowledgebeorganised?Howshouldclassroompracticebemanaged?Thesearehighlycomplexquestionsandneedmoretechnicalresourcesthanotherareasofeducationalresearch.Indeed,acommonthemeacrosstheinterviewswastheopinionthatyoucannotdoaTELprojectwithoutlotsofmulti‐disciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryexpertise.Alsotheproductsorartefactsproducedthenneedaninterdisciplinaryapproachtoevaluation.Fourthly,anumberofstrategiesneedtobeinplacetosupportTELresearchpractices.Researchersneedtobehelpedtodeveloptheskillsneededtoundertakeinterdisciplinaryresearch.Institutionsneedtohaveinplaceappropriatecareerpathstofosterandpromoteinterdisciplinarity.ThishasnotalwaysbeenthecaseandsomeTELresearchershavefoundthattheyhadreachedaceilingintheirinstitutionintermsofpromotion,havingtoeitherreverttomoretraditionalroles/jobtitlesormoveintomanagerialpositions.ItwasfeltthatoftenthevalueofTELresearchgroupsintermsofinstitutionalsupportremainstobefullyexploitedand,thatinterdisciplinaryresearchgroupscouldbeplayingamoreproactiverolewithininstitutions,helpingthemmakestrategicdecisionsontheeffectiveuseoftechnologiestosupportlearningandteaching.ItseemsthatTELresearchgroupsoftenfindthemselvesoutsideofformalinstitutionaldecisionmakingmechanisms.Fifthly,sometensionswereevidentbetweenthedisciplines.TELresearchhastomeettheresearchagendaofthedisciplinesinvolved,and,inparticular,theneedsofbothcomputerscientistsandeducationalists.Someintervieweesfeltthat,historicallyspeaking;educationaltechnology/TELresearchhasbeendominatedbytheeducationalists.Indeed,oneoftheaspirationsbehindtheestablishmentoftheESRC/EPSRCTELprogramme,referencedatthebeginningofthereport,wastoaddressthisbyensuringthatgenuinelyinterdisciplinaryteamsweresetuptotacklerealTELresearchchallenges.Thereremainsatensionbetweentechnologistsandeducationalistsbecauseofthisdominance.Thereisalsoaninherenttensionbetweenthelevelofprecisionneededfromacomputerscienceperspectiveandthelesswell‐definednaturenormallyassociatedwitheducationaldesign,wheredesignismorebasedonpracticeandexperiencethanrulesandmethods.

4.2Influences,beliefsandtheoreticalperspectivesIntervieweeswerealsoaskedtoidentifythekeyinfluences(peopleandtexts)intheirwork,andtoarticulateanybeliefsandtheoreticalperspectivestheycarriedwiththemfromtheiroriginaldisciplines.Theaimwastotryandascertainwhethertherewasacommoncoreofinfluencesandwhatthespreadofinfluencewasfromtheoriginalor‘feeder’disciplines.Mostofthoseinterviewedrecognisedtheroletheirbackgroundplayedinshapingtheirapproachtoresearch:

‘Weareallvictimsofourownhistories’[IntL]Agroupofinfluentialthinkerswereidentifiedbymostoftheinterviewees,andtheredoesappeartobeacommonshareddiscourseunderpinningthefield.Socio‐culturalapproaches–inparticulartheworkofVygotsky(1978),Engeström(1987)andothers

25

aroundActivityTheory–surfacedanumberoftimes.Laurillard’s‘Rethinkinguniversityteachingandlearning’(Laurillard,2002)actedassomewhatofawatershedinthefieldasitwaspublishedatakeytimeand,unsurprisingly,theconversationalframeworkintroducedthereandtheformativeworkbyPaskonConversationTheorywhichinspireditwerealsomentionedbyanumberofthoseinterviewed.RobinMason(SeeforexampleMasonandKaye,1989),anotherprominentandprolificpublisherwascreditedbyoneintervieweeassomeone

‘whoreallysetthesceneforflexiblelearningandIthinkshegavesomanygoodindicationsandfoundationsforwhatwe’realldoingnow’and‘shewasreallyanicontomanypeople.’[IntN]

Listingothersmentionedgivessomeindicationofthetheoreticalperspectivestheseresearchersaredrawingon:AlanCollins(Collins,1993)(design‐basedresearch);MichaelPatton(Patton,2002)(utilisationfocusedevaluation);BarbaraRogoff(RogoffandLave,1984)(culturalpsychology);MaggieBoden(Boden,1977/1987)(artificialIntelligenceandpsychology);LaveandWenger(LaveandWenger,1991)(communitiesofpractice);AlanBlackwell(Blackwelletal.,2009)(interdisciplinarity);HowardGardner(Gardner,1983)(multipleintelligences);JamesWertsch(Wertsch,1998)(mediatingartefacts);andMichaelCole(Cole,1996)(ActivityTheory).Lookingatsomeofthespecifictextsthatwerecitedasinfluencesisalsoinsightful.Theseincluded‘EducatingtheReflectivePractitioner’(Schön1987),‘AcademicTribesand‘Territories:IntellectualEnquiryandtheCulturesofDiscipline’(Becher&Trowler2001),‘DistributedCognition’(Salomon1997),‘Rethinkinguniversityteaching’(Laurillard,2002),‘Plansandsituatedactions:theproblemofhuman‐machinecommunication’(Suchman1987),‘Adynamicmediumforcreativethought’,(Kay,1972),‘‘DoingResearch/ReadingResearchRe‐interrogatingEducation’,(DowlingandBrown,2009),and‘CommonandBorderLands’(Strathern2004).Theseindividualsandtextsgiveaflavourofwhatisshapingthefieldandthebroaderliteraturethatisbeingdrawnon.Itdemonstratesthatthefieldisindeedinterdisciplinary,becausethesetextsaredrawnfromabroadersetofdisciplines,thanresearchthatcanbepurelylabelled‘TEL’.However,thereisanadditionalimportantaspecttothenatureofinterdisciplinarityinTELresearch,bothintermsoftheactualprocessesinvolvedandhowindividualsreactwithandbenefitfromtheotherresearchers.Anumberofintervieweesindicatedthatitwasthenatureofinterdisciplinaryworkingitselfthatwasmoreinfluentialinthewaytheyworked,ratherthaneitheraspecificpersonortext.

‘Ihonestlycouldn’tsaythatitwasbecauseI’vebeenreadingaboutinterdisciplinarity,orwasinspiredbysomegreatspeaker…ithasn’tcomeaboutthatway,ithasbeenthroughapproachesfromindividuals,opportunitiestobeinvolvedinparticularprojects.’[IntH]‘What’sreallymoreinfluencedmeisbeingkeentoworkwithpeoplewhoIthinkaregoodandstrongintheareathatI’mworkingin.’[IntK]

26

‘Ihavelookedatthem.AndIhaven’tfoundhonestly…muchwhichhashelpedinanywayatall.WhatIhavefoundmoreusefulisworkingwithintheteam.’[IntJ]‘Itwasjustsomerecognitionabouteverybody’sinthesameboat,youknow,we’reallstrugglingwiththis.ButIcan’thonestlypointtoanytheorythat’sbeenparticularlyhelpful.’[IntJ]‘Idon’tthinkthere’satextIwouldusetodescribeinterdisciplinaritybutI’mawareofquiteusefuldebatesonthisthathavebeenwritten.’[IntB]

Intervieweesalsoidentifiedtheneedtobringbackgroundtheoreticalperspectivestointerdisciplinaryresearchtotheforetocontextualisetheresearchbeingundertaken:

‘Blendingwhatyoualreadyhad.’[IntN]‘Ialwayswanttomakesurethatwe’reusingtheappropriatemeasurestogaintheoutcomesthatwewantfromourresearch.’[IntN]

Anumberofintervieweesalsoconsideredwhatmightbethebestapproachtoachievingthis:

‘Howcanweintegratetheoriestoproduceacompositeperspective?’[IntM]Alsotwointervieweesidentifiedthechallengesofusingexistingtheoreticalperspectives:

‘Soweareusingtheoriesofcollaborationbutwedon’tthinktheyareadequateenoughforwhatweneed,sowearedevelopingourowntheories.’[IntF]

‘I’minterestedinexploringotherperspectivesbecauseIthinkwe’renowgettingintoquiteachallengingstatewiththeTELresearchthatwedoneedtobroadenmuchmore.’[IntA]

Aflavourofthediversityofbelieves,approaches,andtheoreticalpositioningisreflectedinthefollowingseriesofquotes.Theydemonstratehowtheintervieweesdrawonbutextendbeyondtheirdisciplinaryoriginsandhowtheyweavetheirparticularinterestsintotheapproachtheytake:

‘IbelievethatknowledgeisselfconstructedandI’msympathetictothetraditionofDeweyandPiaget,,,.’[IntP]‘Iwouldbecalledaconstructivist,Ibelievethatsingle,thatpatternsofinstructiondon’tworkforeverybody,andthatindividualsselfconstructtheir

27

knowledgeinahighlyindividualisedway,andthatlearningleveltransitionsforindividualsareverypersonal.’[IntP]‘WellI’mabigsuckerforTonyBecher’sbookonAcademicTribesandTerritories,inotherwordsasortofsociologicalanalysisoftheacademicworldandthewaythatworksandthewaythatcreatessocialnetworkswhicharerelatively,youknow,internalandcomfortableandthatgenerateswaysofthinking,socialpractices,whichispartoftheproblembecauseinterdisciplinarityinitselfmeansbreakingoutofanexistingsetofsocialrelationsandmeetingotherpeople.’[IntR]

‘I’malwaystryingtoclassifyandtaxonomisethings,eventhoughIknowthatthiskindofmessycomplexworld…I’malwaystryingtomakesenseofthingsintosomekindofpatternsorstructures’[IntA]‘IthinktheotherthingisIhintedatearlieron,movingfromascienceparalleltoanonscienceonewasreally,reallytricky,Ifounditpersonallyveryhardbecauseitcompletelywentagainstmytrainingandallmybeliefsets.’[IntA]‘IthinkIhavequiteastrongbeliefinempiricalresearch,youknow,inthesensethat,youknow,Iamquiteexperimentallydrivenandthereforestartedoutinresearchprojectswithquiteaquantitativeapproachtothings,youknow,controlledexperiments.’[IntB]‘Thenotionofcomplexsocio‐culturalcontextsinwhichlearningtakesplaceIthinkspeakstomeasawayofthinkingaboutthesortofworkthatwe’redoing.’[IntB]‘I’mquiteinterestedinwhatmightbecalledinherenttensionsinyourtheoryandnottryingtothinkyouhavetoresolvethem.Andthatwouldbesomethingthatwouldhelpwhenyouareworkinginaninterdisciplinaryway,becauseifyoufindsomeconflictbetweenwhatsomebodythinksandwhatsomebodyelsethinks,youdon’thavetosaywellthathastoberesolved.’[IntK]‘Ithinkquitealotofmyattitudesofthewaythatknowledgeisconstructedasaseriesofsocialrelationsandsoon,hasprobablymademeprettyanthropologicalinmythinking.’[IntI]‘AtheartI’marealbelieverinsocio‐culturalapproaches,andtheyareinterdisciplinary.’[IntQ]

4.3Methodologies,methodsandtoolsThissectionprovidesacommentaryonthemethodologies,methods,andtoolsintervieweeshavebroughtfromtheirdisciplinarybackgroundstointerdisciplinaryresearchworking.

28

Duringtheinterviewstherewassomeblurringbetweenthedefinitionofatheoreticalperspectiveandthemethodologyused,andamethodologyandamethod.ActivityTheory,forexample,wasdiscussedbothasatheoreticalperspectiveandamethodology.Therewasgeneralconsensusthatthereisalinkbetweenthetheoreticalperspective,themethodologyandthemethodsfromyourbackgroundthatyouuse,andalsothatthebackgroundtheoreticalperspectiveinformsthemethodologicalapproachusedinresearch.Thefollowingmethodologieswerementionedspecifically:• Socio‐culturalresearch• ActivityTheory• QualitativeResearchMethodology• DesignResearchMethodology• GroundedTheoryAnumberofintervieweesfeltthatnewmethodologieswereemergingasaresultofinterdisciplinaryresearch.

‘SomeofthemethodologicalapproachesIhavebeenadoptingIamnotsureifwehavealabelonthemyet.Ithinkwearestartingto…seesomenewmethodologicalapproachesdevelopingbutthat’sariskythingtosay.’[IntA]

Thepotentialfornewthinkingandtheemergenceofnewmethodologies,linksbacktothenotionofinterdisciplinarityas‘deviant’or‘transgressive’,discussedearlieranditsabilitytochallengeexistingassumptions(Nowotny,2001;Moran,2010).Intervieweesrecognisedthatinterdisciplinaryresearchworkisunlikelytobeaddressedadequately–orfullyunderstood–withinasingledisciplinaryapproach,andhencethatthereisaneedforaportfolioofmixedmethodologies/methodstobeselectedforinterdisciplinaryresearch.An‘emergent’traditionforinterdisciplinaryresearchinvolvingcombinationsofcomplementarymethodswasidentified,andintervieweesreportedexperienceofsuch‘mixedmethod’projectswhichplacedequalvalueonbothqualitativeandquantitativeapproaches(GreeneandCaracelli,1997).Twospecificnewmethodologiesidentifiedweresocio‐cognitiveengineeringandcollectiveintelligence.Socio‐cognitiveengineeringtakesanengineeringapproachtodevelopinganinteractionbetweenpeopleandtechnology.ThestartingpointforthismethodologyisDonNorman’snotionofcognitiveengineeringanddesigningcognitiveenhancementsystems,whichisthenappliedtotheinteractionbetweenpeopleandtechnologyinasocialsetting.Collectiveintelligenceisanotherapproachthatwascitedasbeingsomethingthatcouldbeusedforinterdisciplinarywork.Collectiveintelligencemaybethoughtofasbothatheoryandamethodologybecauseitvaluesallthedifferentpiecesofevidenceordifferentideas.Therearethemethodsaroundtheevidenceorideaswhicharetodowithtakingthingswhichexistandcategorisingthemtomakeitmoreevidenthowtheyconnect.

29

Acommonviewfromtheinterviewswasthataninterdisciplinaryresearcherneedstobeopen‐mindedandpreparedtoengagewithmanydifferentmethods.‘Triangulationofmethods’[IntP]andcombiningthebenefitsofbothqualitativeandquantitativeapproacheswasdeemedanimportantfeatureofTELresearch:

‘Iamaverystrongbelieverinthevalueofmixedmethodsandtheequalvalueofquantitativeandqualitativeapproachestowork.’[IntL]

Orbycallingintheappropriatedisciplineresearchersduringthework:‘Thisiswhereoursociologistscomeinandstartusingalltheirinstrumentsforevaluation…narrativeanalysisissomethingtheyuse.Verylaborious,buttheydodrawoutsomethingsthatperhapswehadnotnoticedourselves.’[IntN]

Thereisaneedforopen‐mindedwillingnesstoengageinmanydifferentmethodsandadispositiontovalueotherwaysofworkingbasedontheargumentthat:

‘Theyallhavesomethingtosayortheywouldn’tbethere.’[IntR]

‘Thestandardqualitativemethodologyweuse…whichisquiteenlighteningcomparedtothestandardstatisticalmethodsandnumbercrunchingwhichwedoforeverything.’[IntN]

Therangeofmethodsusedininterdisciplinaryresearchidentifiedfromtheinterviewswas:

• Qualitativeapproachesfromeducation• Experimentalapproachesfrompsychology• Ethnography• Interviews• Focusgroups• Statisticalmethods• Openendedquestionnaires• Closedendedquestionnaires• Observations• EvaluationinstrumentsfromSociology• Narrativeanalysis• Researchobservation• Videoanalysis• Documentaryanalysis• Surveys• Clusteringtechniques• Casestudies• Discourseanalysis• Fieldstudies• Designresearch

30

• Ethno‐methodologicalapproaches• Conversationalanalysis• Datacoding• Interactionanalysis• One‐to‐oneinterviews• Evaluationinauthenticcontexts• Experiments• Observationalbehaviouralresearch• Facilitatedworkshops• Practicebasedartsresearch• Dataresearch• Ethnographicfieldwork• Actionresearch• Socialactivism• Participantobservation• Interactionanalysis• Designresearchmethods• Observationalbehaviouralresearch• Microsociologicalinteractionanalysis• CriticalIncidentstudies• Datalogging

ItisinterestingtocomparethiswiththemorecomprehensivereviewofmethodsundertakenaspartoftheinitialscopingworkoftheESRC’sNationalCentreforResearchMethods(Beissel‐Durrant,2004).Howevermixingandcombiningqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesisnotunproblematicandisbelievedbyresearcherstobeoneofthereasonswhypapersgetrejected,becausethereisnotaprecedentoraparadigmfortheapproach.Interdisciplinaryresearcherscannotalwaysrelyonstandardsofvalidityfromsingledisciplines,andoftenhavetoarriveattheirown.Furthermore,whichjournalsaremostappropriateforpublishingtrulyinterdisciplinaryresearchisnotalwaysobvious.Onerespondentarguedthatthemethodsusednowhavetobe‘messy’becauseitisnolongeramatterofdoingpre‐testsandpost‐teststoshowwhathasbeenlearntthroughtechnology,andthatthismessinessisacorecharacteristicofTELresearch.

‘Weareverymuchlookingatthewaytheprocessbywhichchildrenlearnratherthantheknowledgetheygleanthroughtechnologyintervention,andthisinvolvesdoinginthewildstudies,soit’s,youknow,observingthem,askingquestions,settinghypotheses,andhowtheyengagewiththetechnologyintheexternalworld,howtheyengagewitheachotherandhowtheydecidewhattodonext.Andthatisverymessytostudy,andsowehavedevelopedwaysofanalysingconversations,interactionswiththetechnologyandwhattheycreateandhowtheyinteractwiththeworld.’[IntF]

InadditiontocataloguingthetypesoftheoreticalperspectivesandmethodologiesmostcommonlyusedinTELresearch,intervieweeswerealsoaskedaboutwhich

31

technologiestheywereusing,howtheywereusingthemandtheirpersonalperspectivesontheuseoftechnologiesinTELresearch.Anumberofstandardtoolswereidentified,includingdesktopandlaptopPCsandgenericcomputerapplications(Wordfordocumentcreation,Excelforanalysis,PowerPointforstory‐boarding)aswellasmorespecialisedtoolsrelatedtotheindividualresearchersareaofinterestandexpertise(suchasOmnigraphforgraphprocessing,Flex–forbuildingandmaintainingopensourcewebapplications,VisualBasicforbespokeapplications,onlinedataretrievaltools,toolsfordoingspatialanalysis–geographicalinformationsystem,toolsforVisualisation–CompendiumLD,Cohere,toolsforsupportingstructuredargumentation–Interlock).Toolsforcollectingdata(digitalvideoandaudio,mobilephones),managingdata–Pearl,Excel,andhelpingwithdoingqualitativeanalysis–Knight,XMLtools,Atlas.ti,Nvivo,Observer,videotranscriptanalysistoolsandsoftwareforquantitativeanalysis(SPSS,Excel)werealsomentioned.Abroadrangeoftoolswereidentifiedfordatastorage,filesharingandcollectiveauthoring(frombasicuseofWordandthe‘TrackChanges’function,throughtouseofbespokeMoodle‐basedsystems,orWeb2.0tools(suchasGoogleDocs,SharePoint,SlideShare,Flickr,YouTube,ormediaWikis).Anumberofrepositoriesforcollaborationwerealsocited,includingDspace,VirtualResearchEnvironments,Ning,networkfilesharesandarangeofcommunicativeandcollaborationTools(FlashMeeting,Skype,AdobeConnect,Chat,Wimba,videoconferencing,WebCT,Blackboard,Moodle,projectWiki,Basecamp,Dropbox,JISCdiscussionlist,Wiki,bespokeMoodlesites,blogging,Cloudworks).AlltheTELresearcherintervieweesappeartomakeextensiveuseoftechnologiestosupporttheirresearchpractices,butthisuseisdiverseandverymuchindividuallyappropriated.Someresearchersarecomfortablewithadoptingatruly‘web2.0’openapproachtosharingandcommunicatingresearchfindings,othersaremorecautious.Furthermore,thereisawholespectrumbetweenthosethatseethesetechnologiesasmeretoolsandthosewhoseeexperimentationandtheexplorationofnewtechnologiesasakeyfacetofbeingaresearcherinthefield.Theredidnotappeartobeasinglecommontoolsetacrosstheresearchers,butitwasevidentthatasagrouptheyarehighlysophisticatedtechnologyusers,usingthetechnologiestosupportallaspectsoftheresearchlifecyclefromdatacollectionandanalysisthroughtodissemination.Thefollowingquotesdemonstratesomeofthewaysinwhichthetoolsarebeingusedduringresearch.

32

Tool ToolType ExamplesofuseWordand‘TrackChanges’

Wordprocessingtoolformanipulatingtext

‘simplybecausethatprovidesimportantfunctionalityfortrackingdocumentchanges.’[IntE]‘mostlyweusetrackchangesinWorddocuments.’[IntJ]‘Idoloadsofcollaborativewriting,tendtouseWorddocuments,batthembackandforward…usetrackchanges.’[IntK]‘thesimplest,thethingthatprobablyIusemostisjustexchangingWorddocumentsandtrackchanges.’[IntK]

Cohere

Semanticweb‐basedtoolforvisualisingandconnectingideas

‘trackingandbookmarkingsitesandmakingmarginalcommentsandannotatingweb‐sites.’[IntE]

Blogging Web2.0onlinechronologicaljournal

‘towriteaneasyintroduction…toanewpaper,providesaniceintermediatespace…betweenformalpublicationandjusttweeting.’[IntE]

CompendiumLd

Visualisationtool ‘hasbeenusedforqualitativedataanalysisaswell,becauseyouhaveataggingsystemwhichisabitlikequalitativedataanalysiscodesandisveryvisual.’[IntE]

GoogleDocs

Web2.0collaborativewritingforsharingandconstructingdocuments

‘forcollaborativeediting.’[IntE]‘recordingtheissueslogandfordefiningwhatisinandoutofscope.’[IntJ]

Wikis

Web2.0collaborativeforcreatingdocuments

‘tosharedataacrosssites.’[IntB]‘havebeenjointlyauthoringsomethingwithsomebodyelseinadifferentpartoftheuniversityusingaWiki.’[IntH]

Videotranscriptanalysistool

Videoanalysistool ‘whereyoucanbringavideoupandthenattachsegmentstothetranscriptandthencodethetranscript.’[IntE]

Video

Hardware ‘sowehavebeencollectingvideodataofhowtheyusethetabletops(technology),sowereloggingtheirhands,andwecombinethatwithdoingconversationalanalysis.’[IntF]

Dropbox

Web2.0documentsharingtool

‘isawonderfultechnologytohelpuscollaborateondocuments.’[IntF]

Nvivo

Qualitativedataanalysistool

‘wedolotsofconversationalanalysis…solotsofdatacoding.’[IntQ]‘alotofthevideoanalysisactuallyendsuplookingatthecontentsoyoucantranscribeitanduseNvivofordataanalysis.’[IntQ]‘asacontentanalysistoolformultimediacontent.’[IntQ]‘forqualitativeanalysis.’[IntO]

Skype

Voice‐over‐IPaudio/videoconferencingtool

‘alotforcollaborativemeetingsbecauseit’sveryhardtogetpeopleinthesameroomatthesametime.’[IntQ]‘I’veusedSkypequitealotwithdifferentpeopletokindofco‐developWorddocuments.’[IntA]

33

Flickr

Web2.0siteforsharingphotos

‘tostoreourphotos.’[IntO]

Laptop

Hardware ‘ismycoretoolItakeiteverywherewithme,laptopplusiPhone.’[IntA]

PowerPoint

Presentationsoftware ‘I’vedevelopedalotofmyconceptualthinkingwhenIhavetodoapresentationthenthatoftenfeedsintothenextstageofdevelopment.’[IntA]for‘storyboards’.[IntJ]

Basecamp

Projectmanagementtool

‘totrackandmanageyourdeliverables…andwhoisresponsibleforwhat.’[IntJ]‘whensomeonehasdevelopedauserscenario…thatwillgouponBasecampsoweallhaveaccesstoit.’[IntJ]‘itkeepsarecordofthewholearchiveofthewayeverythingdeveloped.’[IntJ]‘forbringingtogether…allthesortofcross‐disciplinarydocumentsthatweareworkingon.’[IntJ]

Cloudworks

Socialnetworkingsite ‘tocaptureconferences…toorganiseworkshops…foraseriesofminorevents…foravirtualworkshop.’[IntC]

Spreadsheets

Spreadsheetformanipulatingdata

‘forprojectmanagementmilestonesandtimetables.’[IntJ]andanalysingdata.

VisualBasic

Programminglanguage ‘Ihaveavarietyofsmallapplications…whicharegenerallykindofspecialfunctionswhichIhavecodedinVisualBasicforapplicationswhichtheycanusewithinExcel.’[IntH]

Ning

Socialnetworkingtool ‘whereyoucanstoredocuments,whereyoucanhaveconversationsaboutthem,whereyoucanupdatethemandyoucankeeprecords.’[IntM]

DSpace

Repository ‘wehavearepositorycalledDSpacewherepeopleloadupalltheirfindings…Youcananalyseauthorshipbyprojectandyoucanmapcollaborationacrossprojects.’[IntR]

Videorecorder

Hardware ‘wearerecordingpeople’sinteractionswithtechnologyinnaturalsettingsorappropriatesettingsandthenlookingforincidentsthatindicatebreakdownsorbreakthroughs.’[IntM]

SPSS

Quantitativesoftwareanalysistool

‘IuseSPSS’fordatamanaging.[IntP]‘forstatisticalanalysis.’[IntB]

34

Notsurprisingly,intervieweeshaddifferentviewsonthetools.Forsometheywereverymuchjustutilities:

‘Iamquitecontenttoworkwithexistingsoftwarepackages,butI’mneitherdrivennormotivatedbytheITsideofstuff.ImeanIusetheITsidetodowhatIneedtodo.’[IntL]‘Ihaveaverylowtoleranceofthetechnology,ifitdoesn’tworkIcan’tbebotheredwithit.’[IntA]

Somehadanaturalinterestinthetools.TheysawexperimentationandimmersioninthetoolsaspartandparcelofbeingaTELresearcherandhencesawitasanimportantpartoftheiroverallresearchapproach:

‘Myownexperience(oftechnology)isanimportantpartofthewayIamasaresearcher.’[IntA]‘I’vealwaysseenmyselfasanearlyadopter.’‘Iamquiteinterestedintheuseofrangesoftechnologiestocommunicate.’[IntA]‘Onlinetoolsareextremelyvaluable.’[IntI]

Twomainissueswereidentifiedwithregardstotheuseoftoolstosupportresearch.Thefirstwasthatuseofthetoolscouldonlyhelptoacertaindegreeessentiallyaroundsomeofthemoremundaneaspectsofdatacollectionandanalysisandthatsome‘hand‐crafting’bytheresearcherisstillalwaysgoingtobeneeded.

‘Mostofitisdonethehardwayandinsomerespectswhenyouarelookingatqualitativeanalysisyoudoreallyneedtolookatitthehardway,becauseyouneedtounderstandwhattherespondentsmean.’[IntN]‘IhavedevelopedtechniquesforcategorisingmydatausingWorddocuments.’[IntK]

‘TheyaremoreasIsaidfordoingtherecordingandthentherealanalysiscomeswhenyoutryandinterpretwhattheythrowatyou’.‘Wehavedevelopedourownmethodforanalysingmessydata,andit’sbasicallyhandcrafted.[IntF]

Thesecondissuewasaroundthesharingofdatafrombothapracticalperspectiveandanethicalperspective.

‘WewentbacktousingChatandSkype,butobviouslywithsomecarebecauseoftheriskofanybodypickinguptheinformation.’[IntN]

35

‘WeworkedonaWikitotrytowritecollaborativelyforadeliverable.Ireallywantedtotrytogenuinelyworkwherepeoplewerecontributing,butitdidn’t,itwasquiteachallenge.’[IntK]‘We’dliketobesharingasmuchdataaspossibleanditremainstrickyinpracticaltermstosharedataaswellasinethicaltermssoyouneedtobeextracarefulwithanythingyouaretryingtoshare.’[IntC]‘Themainproblemthatwehaveatthemomentisthatoneofourteammembersmovedtoanotherinstitutionandwearehavingproblems…wehaveanenormousamountofshareddatawhichwasonashareddrivewithinthedepartment,andthat’snotaccessibletopeopleoutside.’[IntO]

4.4ChallengestoInterdisciplinarityInterdisciplinarityasameansofaddressingcross‐disciplineresearchisoneofthemajorchallengesforinvestmentinTechnologyEnhancedLearningresearchprojects.Thebenefitisperceivedasbeingtacklingtheissuesfromdifferentperspectives,i.e.thatresearchersfromtwoormoredisciplinesbringtheirapproachesandadaptthemtoformasolutiontoanewproblem.Whilstmanyprojectteamsthinktheyareworkinginaninterdisciplinaryway,therealityistheyoftenfailtoovercomethechallengesthatpreventtrueinterdisciplinaryworkingandtheyremainfunctioninginamultidisciplinaryway.

‘Authenticinterdisciplinarityisrareandisveryhardwork.’[IntP]Inrealityalotofwhatislabelledinterdisciplinarity,isinfact:

’pseudo‐interdisciplinarity’or‘parallelplaying’[IntR]wherepeopleworktogetherinteams.Oftenthereisnottrueengagementacrossthedisciplinesatanintellectuallevelintermsofdevelopingacommonlanguageandconceptually.Trulyinterdisciplinaryresearchmustgobeyondcollatingdisciplinaryperspectivesandsomehowsynthesisethemintoawholethatisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.Thiswasacommonthemeevidentfrommanyinterviewsandisdiscussedismoredetailbelow.Itcanbedifficulttofindevidenceofinterdisciplinaryworkingbecausetheremaynotbeenoughresearchprojectdriverstocountertheincentivestoacademicspecialisation.Asdiscussedearlier,theacademicworldisbiasedtowardsdisciplinaryspecialisation,andoftenrewardsesotericorabstractformsofspecialisation.Thenatureofanacademicistobehighlyattunedintheirthinking,andtocultivatespecificityintheirvocabularyandtheirskills.Becauseofthisfocus,manyacademicsstruggleto–orareunwillingto–relatetheirdisciplinetoanotheracademic,equallyattunedtoanotherdiscipline,andthereforetheyarenotwellequippedtoworkingininterdisciplinaryteams.Moreoveritisdifficulttoengagepeopleininterdisciplinaryworkwhentheyaresobusywithdisciplinarywork.Itishardto

36

prioritiseinterdisciplinaryworkunlessitisbackedwiththepromiseofextraresearchresources.AsdiscussedinSection4.2,eachdisciplinebringswithitparticulartheoreticalperspectives.TheseInessencehelpshapeanddefinethediscipline.Oneofthecomplicationsencounteredwhentryingtoadoptamoreinterdisciplinaryapproachisthatthetheoreticalperspectivesthatunderpinthedifferentdisciplinescanbeintension,orevencontradiction.Disciplinaryperspectivesdictatewhatresearchisandhowitistobemanaged.Foranacademictherecanbeareluctancetostepoutofthecomfortzoneintermsofbeingpreparedtoexplainanddefendtheirparticularapproaches.Thisisalsoevidentintheinterviewdata.Anumberofintervieweesrecognisedthebenefitstheircognatedisciplinesoffered(e.g.seeingpatternsincomplexity,beingabletoeasilyshiftbetweentext,numbersandvisualrepresentations,etc.)butalsothatthesedisciplinesstraight‐jacketedtheminaparticularwayofthinkingandmovingbeyondthesedisciplinarypracticesrequireseffortandtime.Asdiscussedearlier,Blackwelletal.(2009)refertothisas‘boundedknowledge’.Itcanalsobedifficulttosheddisciplinaryprejudicesinthatsomedisciplineshavethesensethattheyaretheonly‘real’orvalidauthoritiesoverparticularsubjectareas.

‘Thereisanaristocracyamongstthedisciplinesthatsometimescanbedamagingtointerdisciplinaryworking.’[IntD]

However,tocreatesomethingnewinvolvesanenormousamountofpersonalinvestmentandacademicsareoftennotkeentogiveuptheirdisciplinaryperspective.Iftheprojectistrulyinterdisciplinary,individualpracticefromthedifferentcontributingdisciplinesshouldbechangedorchallengedthroughtheinteractionwithotherdisciplines.TELresearchisoftenviewedasanopenorrelativelyneutralfieldwhichdrawsonarangeofdifferenttheoreticalperspectives.Somebelieve,consequently,thatworkinginTELresearchdoesnotrequireyoutohaveastrongdisciplineperspective,thatapluralityofapproachesisappropriate.(AlthoughthatthequestionofwhetherTELresearchhasparticulartheoreticalallegiancesremainscontentious.)Thislackofaspecific,definedtheoreticalbasisforthefieldisproblematicasitmeansthatTELresearchisperceivedbythosefrommoretraditionaldisciplinestobeunder‐theorisedandhenceimmature.Theacademicworldisoftendeemedtoberemoteanddisconnectedfromexternalworldproblems.Interdisciplinarityisimportantintermsoftryingtobridgeacademicandnon‐academiccontextsinordertoproposesolutionsforreal‐worldproblems.Thereisaratheruneasyrelationshipbetweenthetwoworlds,especiallywhenforanacademictherewardsforbeinginterdisciplinarymaybeunderwhelming,whiletherisksforworkinginaninterdisciplinaryfashionremainhigherthanthoseforworkinginmoretraditionalformsofdisciplinaryresearch.

37

Fromtheinterviewsthemostcommonlyidentifiedchallengetointerdisciplinaryworkingisthatofcommunication.Theinterviewstimeandagainmentiontheimportanceofhavingasharedvision,andclearcommunication.Thisrelatestotheoneoftheissuescitedearlierwithtryingtobereflexive–i.e.thattoooftenassumptionsandvaluesremainopaque.Itisintriguing,therefore,thatthiscommonrecognitionoftheproblemofcommunicationdoesnottranslatemorereadilyintoawillingnessamongdisciplinaryresearcherstofindwaystoovercomethis.Inthecourseoftheinterviews,interdisciplinaritywasfrequentlydescribedasbeing‘hardwork’becauseitinvolvesalongperiodofdevelopingunderstandingineachothers’language.Intheinterviewssomefeltthatsomeresearchpositionsexhibitedepistemologicalormethodologicaldifferencestosuchadegreethattheycannotsitcomfortablytogether.Otherstalkedaboutthepowerrelationshipwithinteams;andinparticularthedynamicsbetweencomputerscientists(whoseekclearlydefinedspecifications)andeducationalist(who‘justwantsomethingbuilt’).Manyintervieweesidentifiedtheuseofterminologyorvocabularyasamajorchallenge:

‘Weallmeandifferentthingsbythewordsweuse’[IntJ]‘Sometimesweekscangobybeforeyouhaverealisedyouarespeakingthesamewordsbuttalkinginadifferentlanguage’.[IntJ]

Intheearlystagesofaprojectthereisaneedtospendagreatdealoftimeandenergyidentifyingifthereisanycommonalityinthewayatermisusedbetweenseparatedisciplines,ifthereisanoverlapinthewaythetermisbeingused,orwhetherthesametermisbeingusedincompletelydifferentways.Collaborativewritinganddiscussionweresuggestedaswaysofhelpingtofindacommonlanguage.Itwasobservedthat,particularlyinTechnologyEnhancedLearningresearch,thelanguagefordescribingpedagogyremainsinadequate,andwhattheresearchworldhascontributedtotheontologyoflearningdesignandpedagogyisweak.Thiscommunicationchallengestandsoverandabovethemorepragmaticchallengespresentedjustbythesimpledifferencesinlanguagewhenworkingonprojectteamsthatcrossnationalborders.

‘InallthemajorprojectsthatIhaveworkedonwehavestruggledtoestablishacommonlanguage’sothatthepeoplefromdifferentdisciplinescantalktoeachother.’[IntM]

Wordssuchas‘scenario’,‘intervention’and‘evaluation’haveforexampleverydifferentmeaningsforeducationalistsandpsychologists,andengineershavedifferentnotionsofhowyouevaluatesomethingcomparedtoapsychologistoraneducationalist.Howeveronceyougetbelowthelanguageproblemthereisafurtherneedtounderstandtherangeofparadigms,concepts,theories,methodologiesandmethodsthatotherdisciplinesuse,andrecognisethefactthateachdisciplineevolvesandthattheseparadigmschange.

38

Oneofthechallengesforanacademicistobeunafraidofsaying‘Idon’tunderstand’[IntA],andhencebeingamenabletoworkingwithotherstodevelopasharedvisionandlanguage.Thisoftenrequirestakingsomereflectivedistancetore‐affirmunderstanding.Howeverthisisnotalwayspossiblewhenworkingtotightprojecttimescales.Timefordevelopmentofsharedunderstandinganditerativereflectionarenotgenerallybuiltintoprojecttimescales,norindeedwouldfundersnecessarilyrecognisethisasavalidsetofactivities,thatrequiredfundingandtime.Thismaychangeinthefuture.Similarargumentscouldhavebeensaidabouttheroleofevaluationanddisseminationactivitiesinprojectsinthepast.However,nowmostfundingbodiesrecognise(andindeedexpect)toseeaproportionofresearchfundsdedicatedtotheseactivities.Thepersonalelementsofcommunicationincluding‘personalchemistry’[IntE],andworkingwithothersthatyourespectandtrustwerealsoidentifiedasbeingimportanttoovercomethischallenge.Itmaybethatengagementwithinterdisciplinaryworkmayevenleadtoachangeinthewayinwhichanindividualviewstheirowndiscipline‐basedresearch.However,theriskoffailingtoovercomethiscommunicationchallengeremainsaconstantthreattointerdisciplinarity.Therewereanumberofintervieweeresponsesaboutthenegativeimpactofdistanceoncommunicationforinterdisciplinaryworkingforprojectteamsspreadacrosscampuses,institutions,orevencountries.Facetofaceinteractionisseenasanimportantmeansofdevelopingsharedunderstanding.Ataprojectlevel,severalproblemswereidentifiedwithmaintainingregularcommunication.Theseincluded:

• Tryingtoestablishregularprojectmeetings

• Non‐attendanceatprojectmeetings

• Ensuringeveryoneontheprojectisengagedwiththecommonvision

• Keepingpeopleuptospeed

• Thetimespentinpreparingforprojectmeetingscomparedagainsttheamountofworkyouarecontributingtotheproject

• Tryingtodevelopandcommunicateacoherentandagreedpointofview

• Preventingcrisesofconfidenceduetoalackofunderstanding

Thesuccessofinterdisciplinaryresearchisdependentonanumberoffactors,including:strongprojectleadership,aneffectiveandsupportiveworkingcultureacrosstheteam,andtrustingrelationshipswithintheteam.Withoutstrongleadershipitcanbeeasyfortheteamstofall‐outandfracture.Conflictcanresultfromhavingaprojectleaderwhodoesnothavetheskillstofosterinterdisciplinarypractice,promotestheirownresearchdisciplineoverothers,ordoesnotunderstandthedifferentdisciplinescontributingtotheresearch.Aprojectteamisfrequentlycomposedofanumberofveryhigh‐poweredacademicswhoallmaywanttobethe‘boss’.Leadershipandprojectrolesandresponsibilities

39

needtobeagreedveryearlyonsoeverybodyknowswhattheircontributiontotheprojectis.Elementsofgoodleadershipwerecitedas:

• Creation,andon‐goingmanagementof,asharedvision• Buildingtherightprojectteammix,withpeoplewhoarewillingtoworkinan

interdisciplinaryway• Managingconflict‐tosomeextentsuccesscomesthroughconflict,butinthe

earlystagesofbringingateamtogethertheseconflictsneedtobemanaged• Beingabletodrawonthestrengthsofthedifferentpartners• Managingcounteragendaswhereprojectpartnershavejoinedtheteamto

usethefundingtobuilda‘shinytool’[IntA],orpursuetheirownresearchi.e.to‘dotheirownthing’[IntR]withintheprojectstructurebutdonotengenderworkinginaninterdisciplinaryfashion

• Controllingthe‘evangelist’[IntN]whobelievesinsomethingpassionately,whereaseverybodyelseontheprojectconsidersittobeasmallpartofthedelivery

• Shiftingbeliefs‐theprojectleaderhastoworkonbuildingrespectforeachother’sdisciplines.

Oneofthechallengestosuccessfulteamworkingistheextenttowhichpeoplegenuinelywanttoworkinaninterdisciplinarywayandresolveconflicts,andtheextenttowhichtheinterdisciplinarityhasbeenseenasanaccommodationnecessaryinordertogetthefundingtopursuetheirownagendas.Peoplewhoarenotwillingtoworkaroundoneanotherandbeflexiblearoundoneanothershouldnotworkoninterdisciplinaryteams.Thedesiretoworkinaninterdisciplinarywayhastocomefromthegroundup.Iftheinstitutiondecidestoimposeinterdisciplinaryworkingitislesslikelytosucceed.Eachoftheresearchersinvolvedininterdisciplinaryresearchneedstounderstandwhatisneededtomakeiteffective,theyhavetobepreparedtoworkwithandlistentotheviewsofothers,andtocompromisetheirownperspectives.

‘Youhavegottobepreparedtoinvesttimeandenergyintoworkingwiththeteamratherthanjustdoingyourbit.’[IntL]

Interdisciplinaryworkinginvolvescollaboration.Itisnoteasytoworktogethercollaboratively,especiallyifthecollaborationrequiresworkingbetweendepartments,institutionsandacrossgeographicalborders.Whenchoosingpeopleforateamtherehastobeasenseofteamworkandcamaraderieforthebestresultseitherintermsofproductivityorreducingconflict.However,teamsmaybecomeveryprotectiveofthepartsoftheprojecttheyhavebeenworkingonandtherecanbeasplitbetweenpeoplewhosupporttheoverallvisionandthosewhomarelesscommitted.Oneofthechallengestoworkinginaninterdisciplinarycontextisthedevelopmentofrespectbetweenthedifferentdisciplines.Academicscanbepassionateaboutthe

40

uniquenatureoftheirdisciplineanditsapproachandmaynotgenerallyinclinedtomaketheefforttotrytolookatthingsfromanotherperspective.Therearepeoplewhofinditdifficulttounderstandthatitispossibletolookattheworldinotherways,andthattheirparticulardisciplinarytraditionisnottheonlyvalidwayoflookingatproblems..

‘Iwasdefinitelyinthesciencecampofwheretheworldisknownandscienceisbestandeverythingelseiswoefullyrubbishandhowcouldtheconceptofdoinganinterviewwithsomebodycountasdata.IttookalongtimetoshiftthatbeliefsetbutIthinkI’mprobablystrongerasaresultbecauseIcannowseebothcamps.’[IntA]

Peoplefromdifferentdisciplinarybackgroundshavetobewillingtorespectotherwaysofworkingandopentheirmindstothefactthattheremightbeotheracceptablewaysofdoingthings.SomeinterviewedfeltthatTELresearchhadbeendominatedbyeducators,whohavetendedtotreatthecomputersciencecomponentasaserviceelement,

‘I’vegotagreatideaforteaching,Iwantyoutoimplementasystemthat’sgoingtorunit’.[IntD]

ConsequentlyitisdifficultfortechnicalpartnersinTELresearchtoseewhattheirowntechnicalresearchagendamightbe,becausetheirrolebecomesmorefunctional.Bringingtogetherpeoplefromaneducationandpedagogybackgroundwithtechnicaldeveloperscanleadtoanimpasse,wherethetechnologyexpertsneedaclearspecificationastowhattheyshoulddesign,andtheeducationalistsfeelthattheycan’tassesswhethersomethingwillworkornotuntilithasbeendesignedandtheycanevaluatesomethingtangible.

‘Ithinkthereisareallackofunderstandingandpossiblyrespectbetweenthecomputerscientistsandeducationalistsandpsychologists.’[IntK]

Somecomputerscientistsareviewedbysomeeducationalistsasseeingeducationasjustcontextandnotbeinginterestedineducationoreducationaltheories.Thecomputerscientistsmightarguethattheeducationalistsdonotadoptarigorousenoughapproachtohowthetechnologiesarespecifiedandthattheyappearmoreinterestedinthepracticeuseofthetools.Academicswithalearningperspectiveareviewedbycomputerscientistsasnotrespectingtheresearchofthecomputerscientist,whichisoftenviewedbyeducationalistsaslackinginethicalconsideration.Educationalistsoftenfeelthattheformalspecificationshandeddownfromcomputersciencearebasedonararefiedorabstractconceptionofpedagogy,andthattherehasbeenacompleteseparationinthewaythatthecomputationalendoflearningdesignhasdeveloped:

41

‘Andequallywearetestingthecomputerscientistsaswell,becausewe'remakingthemthinkaboutwhat'sgoingoninalearningenvironmentinawaythey'veneverhadtothinkaboutbefore.Sothere's,Imeanthere'slotsofstuffinthecomputerscienceliteratureaboutontology'sandlearningdesignsystems.They'vegotformalismsandspecifications,e‐learningspecificationsandsoon,whichareallbuiltonakindoffantasyabouthoweducationisconducted.It'sasortofidealisedconceptualisationofwhatteachersandlearnersdotogether.It’snotreal,andthat'swhatwebringtothatkindofworkIthink.Sothere'sbeenacompleteseparationreallyinthewaythatthatcomputationalendoflearningdesignhasdeveloped.Andthewayinwhichteachersandlearnersactuallybehave.’[IntJ]

Oneofthetraditionaldifficultiesthatresearchineducationhashadisthatitisviewedasbeingmethodologicallyweak,andoneofthedifficultiesisinsettingupanappropriatecontrolledenvironmentwhereitispossibletodemonstratesuccess.ArealproblemforTELresearchandeducationalresearchingeneralistheidentification,demonstrationandmeasurementofsuchsuccess.Oneofthechallengesistopulltogethertheoutputsorevidencefromdifferentviewpointsanddisciplinesandtofindthetoolsthatsupportinterdisciplinaritybyevidencingthevalueitadds.Institutionalstructurescan(perhapsinadvertently)impedeinterdisciplinarywork.Evidenceofbothinstitutionalandepistemologicalbarrierswascitedintheinterviews.TheTELresearchersinterviewedalldocumentedcareertrajectoriesacrossdifferentdisciplineboundaries.Therewasnoonecommon‘logical’locationforTELresearcherswhoinsteadweredispersedacrossarangeofcognatedisciplinedepartmentsorserviceunits.Rarelywerethereexamplesofdepartmentsgenuinelyorganisedaroundaninterdisciplinaryapproach.Inaddition,therewasanissueabouttheperceivedcredibilityofinterdisciplinaryresearchincomparisontotraditionalresearchdomainsandmanyofthemetricsusedtoassessresearchsuccess(suchasfundingopportunities,prestigiousjournals,andindividualcontributions/weightingsofresearchoutput)actuallymitigateagainstinterdisciplinaryapproaches.Thistensionwasevidentintheinterviews,whereresearcherssaidthatitwasofteneasiertoreverttopublishingintheirhomedisciplinejournals,wherethe‘rulesofthegame’werefamiliar.Tryingtocrossdisciplineboundariesandmergedifferentmethodologicalperspectiveswasextremelychallenging.Thiswasalsocitedasaproblematthefundingstage,whereinterdisciplinaryproposalswereoftenjudgedbythosewhohadanarrow,singledisciplineviewandhencewereunabletoseethebroaderpicture.Furthermore,whenworkingacrossdisciplinaryboundaries,theremaybenoscientificconsensusoradequateprocessofpeerreview.

‘Wereallyliketopromoteinter‐instituteinterdisciplinaryworking,butthepracticalset‐upoftheuniversitydoesn’tfacilitateitdesperatelywell.’[IntH]

SystemswithinHigherEducationInstitutionsandaccountabilitysystemssuchastheResearchAssessmentExercise,itcouldbeargued,tendtoevaluateaccordingto

42

relativelytraditionaldisciplineboundaries,whichdisadvantagesthosewhoareeitherworkinginemergentfieldsorattemptingtoworkacrossdisciplines.Thereisalsoaconflictbetweentraditionalsubjectboundariesandinterdisciplinaryprojectswithresearchersfrommultipledisciplines,wheremonitoringandaccountabilitysystemswhichdonotrecognisethediversityoftheproject.Lattuca(2001)arguesthereisatendencytowardsacademicspecialisation,andhencenotsurprisingly,oftenpublishingofresearchoutputsisgearedtowardsdisciplinaryspecialisation.Individualresearchcommunitiescanhavestrongviewsaboutwhattheyseeasacceptableaspublicationsandhavequiteparticularwaysofreviewing,andtherearedifferentculturesofpublishingindifferentdisciplines.Oneviewcommunicatedwasthatthe‘best’[IntM]journalsdon’ttendtobeinterdisciplinary,andiftheyareinterdisciplinarytheytendtopublishfromaparticularperspectivee.g.technology,oreducation,orpsychology.Ifyouaretryingtocutacrossthesedisciplinesthenfindingasuitablehighqualitypublicationthatnotonlyrecognisesinterdisciplinaryresearch,butalsoacceptsandcelebratesitcanbedifficult.Occasionallytheremightbeaproperinterdisciplinaryaudience,e.g.forcognitivescience,wheretheinterdisciplinarityisrecognised.

‘IseriouslydoubtthattherealaudienceforanythingIdoisactuallyinthefieldwheretheresearchwasoriginallyconducted.Sounfortunatelythecurrentassessmentregimesdon’tlookverykindlyonthat.’[IntI]

Breakingthroughsuchstronglyheldbeliefsandculturalpracticesrequiresboldapproachesor‘guerrilla’tacticssuchaseditingaspecialissueofajournalandforegroundingtheinterdisciplinaryaspectsofthework,usingalternativecommunicationforms(suchasblogsandwikis)tofosterdebateonthechangingnatureofacademicdiscourse,orchallengingexistingmetricsforwhatconstitutes‘good’research.Theresearchprocesstypicallyconsistsofaninterdisciplinaryteamworkingtogetherandproducingasetofprojectoutputs.However,thetendencythenisforindividualdisciplinaryleadstowritefortheirdisciplinaryaudience,andtoselectivelyincludeotherstocomeinonpartsofthosepapers.Whilstthishasthebenefitofreachingdifferentdisciplinaryaudiences,thechallengeisthattheresultisperhapsnotastrulyinterdisciplinaryastheworkreallywas.Rarelydoyougetgenuineco‐constructedsharedresearchpapers;firstlybecausethereisperceivedtobemorekudosinpublishinginyourownresearchfield,andsecondly,becausegenuinelyco‐constructingasharedpapercanpresentadditionalchallenges.Thereisaviewthatsomeonewhoisreallyinterdisciplinarywouldhavetodistorttheiroutputtogetpublished,andtoangletheoutputsofapieceofresearchmoretowardsoneaudiencethananotheratdifferenttimes.Inthewordsofoneinterviewee:

‘Thereisn’tarightjournalreallyforus’[IntJ]

43

‘Whatwealsohavetodo,interestingly,istosellourlineinothercontexts,inthedisciplinarycontext.’[IntJ]

Tryingtosubmitaninterdisciplinarypapertoajournalthatisprimarilyfocussedaroundaparticulardisciplinecancauseanumberofproblems.Articlesmaygetcriticisedbecausethemethodologyisnotoneusuallyusedinthatdiscipline.Alternatively,thejournalmightdeemthefocusofthepaperasoutofscope.Journalpublicationsremaincrucialtobuildinganacademicreputation.Onecouldcontendthatitiseasiertobeinterdisciplinaryasanestablishedresearcher,whenresearchreputationhasalreadybeenestablished.Thetypesofchallengesforacademicstryingtopublishtheoutputsofinterdisciplinaryresearchcitedincluded:• Recognisingthatitisvalidtopublishininterdisciplinaryspaces

• Identifyingappropriatejournalstopublishinandcarefulliaisingwitheditors

• Acknowledgingthatinterdisciplinarycontributionsareoftenjudgedbypeoplewithasingledisciplinaryperspectiveandhenceviewedfromanarrowerperspective

• Understandingtherulesofthegametoshapeyoursubmissions

• Needingtopublishtheresultsofyourinterdisciplinaryprojectbackinyourhomedisciplinetobuildyourdisciplinaryreputation.

Journalarticlesandconferencepapersarestillseenasthemainwayofdisseminatingresearchwork,andremainthetraditionalmeansofdeliveringorfacilitatingpeerreview.However,theemergenceofnewtechnologies–and,inparticular,theparticipatoryWeb2.0technologies–arestartingtochangethenatureofacademicdiscourseintermsofhowandwhereresearchisdisseminatedanddiscussed.ThetraditionaljournalpapercanseemsomewhatoutmodedtoTELresearchers,whoroutinelyhaveamulti‐faceteddigitalprofilewhichmakesuseofarangeofsocialmediatoolsforcommunicatingtheirresearchthoughtsandfindings.Researcherswhofitthisprofilemayfeelunnecessarilyrestrictediftheyareexpectedtoprimarilypublishedintraditionaljournal.Thediscourseofresearchcouncilssuggeststhattheyarekeentopromoteinterdisciplinarywork.However,itisoftendifficultforthemtomanagetheprocessofpeerreviewofproposals:

‘Ifyousubmitaninterdisciplinaryideaforfundingyoujustsortofpraythatreviewerswhoaresympathetictoitaregoingtogetassignedandaregoingtobringcriteriathatresonateswithyours.’[IntE]

Sometimesaninterdisciplinaryfocusislostupongrantawarders,whomaybefromasinglediscipline.Similarly,fundingbodiesmayprioritisefactorsotherthanputtingtogethertheidealinterdisciplinaryresearchteam,suchasfulfillingobligationsforring‐fencedfundingorstrategicdevelopment.Whenapplyingforfunding,

44

interdisciplinaryteamsshouldensurethattheymakethebestpossiblecase,payingspecialattentiontotheparticularfeaturesofinterdisciplinaryresearch.

4.5ThebenefitsofinterdisciplinaryworkingWhilstthepurposeofworkinginaninterdisciplinarymannerfromaresearchprojectperspectiveistoprovidenewsolutionstonewproblemsfromacrossdisciplines,manyofthebenefitsidentifiedduringtheinterviewswereofapersonalandacademicnature.

‘It’sacertainkindofintellectualcuriosityandalackofpatiencefordoingthesamethingoverandoveragain.’[IntI]‘Ireallyenjoyunderstandinghowotherdisciplinesthinkbecausetryingtoseetheworldthroughadifferentperson’seyesis…reallyexcitingforme.’[IntE]‘Oneofthebenefitsishavingdifferentrichtheoreticalandmethodologicalperspectivesandlookingatthesamesharedproblemspacefromdifferenteyes.’[IntA]‘It’ssomethingwithinthezeitgeist,atthemomentthatweshouldbeinterdisciplinary’or‘aspiretobeinterdisciplinary’.[IntF]

Anumberofbenefitsofdoinginterdisciplinaryresearchwereidentified.Firstly,thatitpushestheresearchersintellectually;ithelpsbroadenthemindandencouragesthinkinglaterallyor‘outofthebox’[IntF].Secondly,itenablesresearcherstodothingsthattheycouldn’tdoontheirown;researchersinteractwithandlearnfromotherpeopleandtheirskillsset,drawingonthestrengthsanddifferentarmouryoftoolstheybringfromtheirdifferentdisciplineperspectives.Finally,becomingawareofotherdisciplineperspectiveshelpsbroadenaresearcher’sliteraturebaseandmaygiverisetofreshtheoreticalinsights.Interdisciplinaritythereforeisreflexivebynature,assuggestedbyRomm(1998).Thisisapparentfromtheinterviews,wherethereflexivenatureofinterdisciplinarityiscitedasakeystrengthbymanyoftheintervieweesinthewaysarticulatedabove.Acommonthemefromtheinterviewswasthatwhilstthesebenefitsarehardtoquantify,onceresearchersstarttocrossdisciplinaryboundariespeoplebecomeexposedtodifferentwaysofdoingthingse.g.differentterminologies,methodologies,toolsandliterature.Thebenefitisthat,followingsuchexposure,theindividual’sownideasstarttoadaptpossibly:

‘severalyearsaheadofhowtheymighthavedoneifyouhadwaitedforyourowndisciplinetogetonthatparticulartrack.’

Inotherwords,byworkingwithpeopleinotherdisciplinesanindividualstartstoaddquitedifferentslantstotheirowninterpretationoftheirowndiscipline.Theoverallpositiveimpactuponinterdisciplinarityisthatoncearesearcherhassuccessfully

45

workedinaninterdisciplinaryteam,theyaremorelikelytochampionandfurtherinterdisciplinarypractices.Thesepersonalbenefitsarealsoreflectedintermsofbothproductandprocessbenefit.Therearebenefitsinhavingcontributionsfrompeopleacrossmultipledisciplinesforthe‘product’[IntQ]thatisdeveloped.Butthereisalsoaprocessbenefitintermsofsharedunderstandingofhowtoworkinaninterdisciplinaryfashion.Fromaprojectperspective,interdisciplinarityworkingcanprovideamuchricherresearchoutputthandisciplinaryormultidisciplinaryworking.Itcanalsoresultintheproductionofmanymorepaperspublishedinawidervarietyofjournals,resultinginagreaterdisseminationoftheresearch.Italsomakestheprojectalearningprocessinitsownright.Thereisalsoapossibilitythatindividualresearchersmightbeinspiredtomakeatheoreticalbreak‐throughfromhavingexperienceddifferentdisciplinaryworlds.Fromtheaboveitispossibletoformulateasetofquestions,whicharisefromtheissuesthathaveemergedfromtheinterviews:• Whatarethebestwaysofovercomingi)disciplinarynicheworkingin

interdisciplinaryprojects,andii)thetraditionofacademicspecialisation,asbarrierstoworkingwithotherdisciplines?

• Howcanwedevelopacommonlanguagearoundterminologyandanunderstandingofotherdisciplinetheoriesandmethodologies?

• Whatarethebestwaysofmanagingteamworking,especiallyingeographicallyseparatelocationsandhowcantechnologiesbeusedtosupportthis?

• Howcanteamsbesetuptofostereffectiveinterdisciplinarypractices(forexamplethedevelopmentofsharedunderstandingandtrust,theimportanceofgoodteamleadershipandasharedvision)?

• Whatskillsandcompetencesareneededtoundertakeninterdisciplinaryresearch,whoarethe‘right’kindsofprojectmembersandhowcantheybeattracted?

• Howcanwebuildrespectforthevaluesandbeliefsofotherdisciplines?

• Howdowemanage/overcomeexistingtensionsbetweendisciplines?

• Whatarethebestwaysofworkingwithintheconstraintsofpossiblythemultipleinstitutionalstructuresbehindtheprojectpartners?

• Whatarethebestpublishingchannelsforinterdisciplinaryworkandhowdoweensuregoodinterdisciplinaryworksgetsthecreditandacademicreputationitdeserves?

Theinterviewquestionsaboutpersonalexperienceofworkingonsuccessfulprojectselicitedfurtherresponsesabouthowsuccesscanbefosteredfromaprojectperspective,andatapersonallevel.

46

Fromaprojectperspective,acleardefinitionofprojectgovernanceandgoodmanagementisessential.Itisimportanttostartwithaclearresearchdefinitionandscope,andtodevelopacommonsharedvisionoftheoverallgoalsoftheprojectsothateverybodyknowswhatthewholeteamisworkingtowards.Everybodymustknowtheirpartintheprojectandunderstandtheirroleandresponsibilities;whattheprojectschedulefortasksandmilestoneslookslike;thatthebudgetisagreedfordoingthework;therequirementsforreportingprogressandissues;andtheproceduresforevaluatingtheprogressandresultsoftheprogress.Itisveryimportantthatprojectmembersrecognisewhatstrengthsotherpeopleandotherdisciplinesbringtotheproject.Itisimportanttoagreetheprojectgovernanceinanopen,consultativeandcollaborativeway.Theinterviewshoweverdidrevealanumberofvaluablesuccessstrategiesthroughtheirexperiencesofworkinginthesekindsofteams.Commonthemesincludedtheimportanceofhavingasharedvision,theneedforgoodleadership,effectiveandfrequentcommunicationchannelsandtheneedtoensurethatthereismutualtrustanddevelopedofanunderstandingofindividualresearchers.Thedownsideofsuchagovernancestructureisthatitcomesintoconflictwithacademiccreativity,soabalancemustbefoundbetweenprojectrigourandstructureandwhatoneintervieweedescribedasthe‘controlleddisorder’neededtoallowacademiccreativitytoflourish.

‘Thereisintegrityandstrengthineachofthedifferentperspectives,butwhentheyarewoventogetheryougetatapestry’.[IntE]

Itwasalsoidentifiedthatsuccessmaycomeoutofconflict,particularlyintheearlystagesofbringingtogetheraprojectteam.Theteammembersneedtobeflexibleintheirapproachtoworkthroughtheconflictwithresearchersfromotherdisciplines.Successfulcollaborationtoachievethismixofprojectcoherenceandcreativityislargelyaboutleadership.

‘Currentresearchpolicywouldhaveyoubelievethatyoujustassembleabunchofcleverpeople,givethemtheresourcestodowhattheywanttodoandremoveobstacles,andletthemgetontobeoriginal.Thatismanagementfrombehind.Neitherisitleadingahugeteamofresearchminionsandwhippingthemtocarryoutyourexperimentsforthem,leadershipfromthefront.’[IntI]

Theresearchleaderneedstobesomeonewhocandrawateamtogetherofdifferentdisciplinaryperspectives,andinspirethemwithavisionthathelpsthemovercomeobstacles,andyetintheviewofoneofourinterviewees

‘themostvaluableoutcomesofaninterdisciplinaryprojectaretheonesyouhadnotanticipatedinadvance.’[IntI]

47

Ifitwaspossibletosaywhatitwasyouweregoingtoachieveitwouldhavebeensaidfromtheperspectiveofadiscipline.Theleadermustnotonlythereforeprovideaninspiringvisionatthestartoftheproject:

‘butalsohastobereadytoabandonthatvisionwhentherealanswercomesinview’.[IntI]

Asimilarviewwasputforwardbyanotherinterviewee:

‘Itseemedtobeanincrediblysuccessfulproject…particularlygiventhefactthatithadsuchdifferentpartners,suchdifferentstakeholders.Whatcameoutreallystronglywasthattherewasacommonsharedvisionforwhattheyweretryingtoachieveandthatseemedtobewhatheldittogetheralthougheachofthestakeholdershadtheirownindividualdifferentagendas.’[IntA]

Theleadershipmustalsocreatetherightmixwithintheteam.Tolookforteammemberswhogenuinelywanttoworkinaninterdisciplinarymanner,peoplewhoarewillingtothinkoutofthebox,andwhowanttheprojecttosucceed.Thismotivationwillovercomealotofthechallengesfaced.Oneviewexpressedwasthatsuccessdependsmoreonthenatureoftheindividualthatitdoesupontheirinterdisciplinarity,andselectingindividualswhocanworkaspartoftheteamandrecognisethattheirparticulardisciplinaryapproachisnottheonlyvalidwayisimportant.Youneedteammemberswhoarewillingtoinvesttimeandenergytoworkwithotherpeople,tolistentotheirviewsandwhoareflexibleenoughtocompromisetheirownperspectivesinsteadofonlyfocusingonthereareaofexpertise.Itmaybetakenasasignofsuccessfulinterdisciplinarycollaborationifpeoplecometothediscussionwiththeirownperspectives,collaborateandleavewithnewperspectives.Iftheyleavewiththeirownperspectivesintactthecollaborationhasfailed.Althoughnotrestrictedtointerdisciplinaryworkingpersonalrelationshipsareimportantinachievingthisshiftofperspective,andtheextenttowhichyouarecomfortableandfamiliarwithinterdisciplinarycolleaguesisimportant.

‘Itislikeanycollaboration,whenyouhavethepersonalchemistrytherethatallowsyoutohavefunandtotalkaroundideas.’[IntE]

‘Thehallmarkofinterdisciplinarityreallyworkingiswhenitstartstoinfluencewhatyoudo…Ithinkthatanotherhallmarkofsuccessfulinterdisciplinarityisrespectforthemethodsandknowledgeofyourinterdisciplinarycolleagues.’[IntP]

Theroleofaprojectleaderneedstobeopen’toincludethesedifferentapproachesandtogetthemostoutofthestrengthsthatindividualsbringfromtheirdisciplinesratherthanbeprescriptiveaboutthenatureofthework.

48

Academiccareerstructuresdonoteasilyfavourpeopledoinginterdisciplinaryresearch.Fundingbodiesareoftenorganisedalongdisciplinarylines.Inaddition,therearerelativelyfewerinterdisciplinaryjobopportunities,sothecareeropportunitiesforinterdisciplinaryresearchersprobablyremainwithinestablisheddisciplines.Establisheddisciplinescanbehostiletointerdisciplinary,whichmaybeseenasparasitic,orlackingrigour.Sothereisaviewthattimespentparticipatingininterdisciplinarywork

‘hasactuallydamagedthecareerprospectsofawholecohortofbrightyoungresearchers.’[IntI]

Thereforethinkingabouthowtheresearchprojectmightofferpracticalsupportorpastoralcareinprovidingvaluefortheirfutureacademiccareersisofbenefitandwillhelpattractresearchers.

4ConclusionTowhatextenthaveweachievedtheaimsofthisresearchasoutlinedinSection1?RecallthatourintentionwastoexplorethespecificityofinterdisciplinarityinaTechnologyEnhancedLearning(TEL)researchcontext,andtoidentifystrategiesforsupporting,communicatinganddocumentinginterdisciplinarity.ItisevidentfromboththereviewofrecentliteratureandthedatafromtheinterviewsthatinterdisciplinarityisacorefeatureofTELresearch.TELresearchersaredrawnfromacrossabroadrangeofdisciplinesandbringwiththemarichvarietyoftheoreticalperspectivesandmethodologies.ThesehavethepotentialtobeharnessedtoproviderealinsightsintosomeofthechallengingresearchquestionswhicharecontemporaryinTEL.However,thismultiplicityalsobringschallenges,suchasalackofasharedcoherentdiscourse,tensionsandpowerstrugglesbetweenthedifferentsubjectdomainsandalackofperceivedrigourandcredibility.Inordertoovercomethesechallenges,anumberofstrategieswereidentified:theimportanceofhavingashared,commonvisionacrosstheteam;mechanismsinplacetosupportcapacitybuildingwithintheteam;clear,effectiveandfrequentcommunicationmechanisms;and,mostimportantly,asenseofsharedtrustandownership.ThisstudyhasidentifiedanumberofperceivedbenefitsofundertakinginterdisciplinaryworkinTELresearch.Theseincludedcapitalisingonthebreadthofdifferenttheoreticalandmethodologicalperspectivestoaddresskeyresearchchallenges.Workingininterdisciplinaryteamswasalsocitedbymanyasbeneficialintermsofbroadeningtheirresearchperspectives,becomingawareofadditionalliteraturestothosethattheyaremostfamiliarwithandhavingotherstochallengeandbounceideasoff.Thenatureofteams,theneedforacoresharedvision,andstrongleadershipwereallcitedasimportantstrategiesforsuccess.Tensions,however,arealsoevident:itisoftendifficulttodevelopasharedcommonlanguage,andbuildingastrongteamrequirestimeandtrust.Institutionalandprofessionalbarriersarealsoevident.Singledisciplineresearchisgenerallymorehighlyregarded

49

andmuchinterdisciplinaryresearchisoftenaccusedofbeingmethodologicallymuddledorlessrigorous.Intermsofsupporting,communicatinganddocumentinginterdisciplinarityitisevidentthatanumberofstrategiescanbeadopted.First,andperhapsforemost,istheneedtoensurethatthereiseffectivecommunicationacrosstheteam.Thedifferentperspectivesamongstteammembersneedtobearticulatedandinterrogatedinlightoftheresearchquestionbeingaddressed.Anongoingiterativeprocessofdialogicengagementandcriticalreflectionisneeded,sothattheteamcancometosomedegreeofsharedunderstandingandconsensus.Thetimeandeffortneededtoachievethisshouldnotbeunderestimated.Technologieshavethepotentialtoactaspowerfulmediatingartefactsinthisprocess,byprovidingmechanismsforsharinganddocumentingunderstanding.Theycanactasapromptfordebateandasadigitaltrialofthediscoursewithintheteam.Thechoiceofwhichtechnologiestousewillhaveanimpactonthenatureofthediscussionandthecollaboration;interactionsinandthroughawikiareverydifferentto,forexample,thoseinacollectiveblog.Secondly,teamdynamicsareclearlyimportant,but,inparticular,theroleoftheprincipalinvestigatorisperhapsevenmoreimportantininterdisciplinaryprojectsthenthosebasedinasinglediscipline.Theprojectleadneedstobesensitivetogroupdynamicsandhelpfosteracultureoftrustandsharedenterprise.Thearticulationofacommonvisionfortheresearchrightatthestartoftheprojectcanhelpwiththis,ascantheongoingdialogicexchangediscussedabove.Thirdly,capacitybuildingislikelytobeimportant,bothintermsofhelpingindividualstodeveloptheskillsandcompetencestheyneedtoadoptinterdisciplinaryapproachesandtousenewtechnologiesaseffectivetools.TheinterviewshaveyieldedvaluableinsightsintothenatureofinterdisciplinarityinTELresearch;highlightingboththebenefitsandchallenges.Theyalsosuggestedanumberofstrategiesthatcanbeadoptedtopromotebetterinterdisciplinaryresearch.However,anumberofoverarchingpolicy,professionalandinstitutionalissuesremain.IfweagreethatinterdisciplinarityisessentialfortacklingTELresearchchallenges,thenexistingtheoreticalandpracticalbarrierswillneedtobeovercome.Anumberofproposalsfortakingthisworkforwardaresuggested:1. ThereportissentoutforwiderconsultationthroughtheTELresearch

community,viatheTLRPTELwebsiteandontheacademicsocialnetworkingsite,Cloudworks.

2. Thedebatefrom1)isusedasthebasisforproducingaTELcommentaryoninterdisciplinarityandTELresearch.

3. AmoredetailedlongitudinalresearchstudyisconductedfollowinganumberofcasestudiesofinterdisciplinaryTELresearchtofurtherunderstandthebenefitsandchallengesofworkinginthiswayandtoidentifysuccessfulinterventionsforchange.

50

6ReferencesAugsburg,T.,&Henry,S.(Eds.).(2009).Thepoliticsofinterdisciplinarystudies:

essaysontransformationsinAmericanundergraduateprograms.Jefferson,N.C.:McFarland.

Bauman,Z.(2000).LiquidModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Becher,T.,&Trowler,P.(2001).AcademicTribesandTerritories:intellectualenquiryandtheculturesofdisciplines(2nded.).Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress/SRHE.

Beissel‐Durrant,G.(2004).ATypologyofResearchMethodsWithintheSocialSciencesRetrieved20thApril,2010,fromhttp://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/115/

Blackwell,A.F.,Wilson,L.,Street,A.,Boulton,C.,&Knell,J.(2009).RadicalInnovation:crossingknowledgeboundarieswithinterdisciplinaryteams(No.760):UniversityofCambridgeComputerLaboratory.

Boden,M.(1989).ArtificialIntelligenceInPsychology.Cambridge,Mass.:TheMITPress.

Braddock,R.D.,Fien,J.,&Rickson,R.(1994).Environmentalstudies:managingthedisciplinarydivide.TheEnvironmentalist14(1),35‐46.

Brew,A.(2008).DisciplinaryandInterdisciplinaryAffiliationsofExperiencedResearchers.TheInternationalJournalofHigherEducationandEducationalPlanning,56(4),423‐438.

Cole,M.(2005).Cultural‐HistoricalActivityTheoryintheFamilyofSocio‐CulturalApproaches.NewsletteroftheInternationalSocietyfortheStudyofBehavioralDevelopment,47(1),1‐4.

Collins,A.,Joseph,D.,&Bielaczyc,K.(2004).DesignResearch:TheoreticalandMethodologicalIssues.TheJournalOfTheLearningSciences,13(1),15‐42.

Conole,G.(2006).Whatimpactaretechnologieshavingandhowaretheychangingpractice?InI.McNay(Ed.),BeyondMassHigherEducation:BuildingonExperience.TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation:TheOpenUniversityPress/McGraw‐HillEducation.

Conole,G.,White,S.andOliver,M.(2007).Understandingorganisationalcultures,rolesandidentities.InG.Conole&M.Oliver(Eds.),Contemporaryperspectivesine‐learningresearch(pp.NEEDPAGEREFS).London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Conole,G.(2008).Fosteringinterdisciplinarity.e4innovation.comRetrieved20thApril,2010,from<http://e4innovation.com/?p=269>

Conole,G.(Forthcoming2010).Steppingovertheedge:theimplicationsofnewtechnologiesforeduca.InM.J.W.Lee&C.McLoughlin(Eds.),Web2.0‐basede‐learning:Applyingsocialinformaticsfortertiaryteaching.Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

51

Conole,G.,&Alevizou,P.(Forthcoming2010).Literaturereview:theuse(s)ofweb2.0inEducation.ReportfortheHigherEducationalAcademy's'PearlsintheSky'Project.MiltonKeynes:TheOpenUniversity.

Cook‐Sather,A.,&Shore,E.(2007).BreakingtheRuleofDisciplineinInterdisciplinarity:RedefiningProfessors,Students,andStaffasFaculty`.JournalofResearchPractice,3(2).Retrievedfrom<http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/101/93>

Dewey,J.(1916).DemocracyandEducation:AnIntroductiontothePhilosophyofEducation.NewYork:TheFreePress.

diSessa,A.(2000).ChangingMinds:Computers,Learning,andLiteracy.Cambridge,Mass.:TheMITPress.

Dowling,P.,&Brown,A.(2010).Doingresearch/readingresearch:re‐interrogatingeducation(2nded.).LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Dron,J.(2007).DesigningtheUndesignable:SocialSoftwareandControl.EducationalTechnology&Society,10(3),60‐71.

Engström,Y.(1987).LearningbyExpanding:anActivityTheoreticalApproachtoDevelopmentalResearch.Helsinki:Orienta‐KonsultitOy.

Franks,D.M.,Dale,P.E.,Hindmarsh,R.A.,Fellows,C.S.,Buckridge,M.M.,&Cybinski,P.J.(2007).Interdisciplinaryfoundations:reflectingoninterdisciplinarityandthreedecadesofteachingandresearchatGriffithUniversity,Australia.StudiesinHigherEducation,32(2),167‐185.

Freeman,L.C.(1977).Asetofmeasuresofcentralitybasedonbetweenness.Sociometry,40,35‐41.

Frodeman,R.,&Mitchum,C.(2007).NewDirectionsinInterdisciplinarity:Broad,Deep,andCritical.BulletinofScience,Technology&Society,27(6),506‐514.

Gardner,H.(1993).FramesofMind:Thetheoryofmultipleintelligences(2nded.).London:FontanaPress.

Gibbons,M.,Limoges,C.,Nowotny,H.,Schwartzman,S.,Scott,P.,&Trow,M.(Eds.).(1994).Thenewproductionofknowledge:thedynamicsofscienceandresearchincontemporarysocieties.London:Sage.

Greene,J.C.,&Caracelli,V.J.(Eds.).(1997).Advancesinmixed‐methodevaluation:Thechallengesandbenefitsofintegratingdiverseparadigms..SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.

Holley,K.A.(2010).SpecialIssue:UnderstandingInterdisciplinaryChallengesandOpportunitiesinHigherEducationASHEHigherEducationReport35(Vol.2,pp.1‐120).

Jenkins,H.(2009).Confrontingthechallengesofparticipatoryculture:Mediaeducationforthe21stcentury.Boston:TheMITPress.

Kay,A.,&Goldberg,A.(1977).PersonalDynamicMedia.IEEEComputer,10(3),31‐41.

52

Mason,R.,&Kaye,A.(Eds.).(1989).Mindweave:Communication,computersanddistanceeducation.Oxford:PergamonPress.

Kay,A.C.(1972).Adynamicmediumforcreativethought.PaperpresentedattheNationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglishConference,Minneapolis.

Klein,J.T.(1990).Interdisciplinarity:history,theory,andpractice.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress.

Lancaster,R.J.(2000).Theuseoftheinternetforteachingchemistry.AnalyticaChimicaActa,420(2),239‐244.

Laurillard,D.(2002).RethinkingUniversityTeaching:AConversationalFrameworkfortheEffectiveUseofLearningTechnologies(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Lave,J.,&Wenger,E.(1991).Situatedlearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Luke,C.(2003).Pedagogy,Connectivity,Multimodality,andInterdisciplinarity.ReadingResearchQuarterly,38(3),397‐403.

Lunca,M.(1996).Anepistemologicalprogrammeforinterdisciplinarisation.Utrecht:ISOR.

Lyotard,J.‐F.(1979).Laconditionpostmoderne:rapportsurlesavoir.Paris:Minuit.

Moore,M.G.(1993).Theoryoftransactionaldistance.InD.Keegan(Ed.),TheoreticalPrinciplesofDistanceEducation(pp.22‐38).NewYork:Routledge.

Moran,J.(2010).Interdisciplinarity(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Moss,D.M.,Osborn,T.A.,&Kaufman,D.(Eds.).(2008).Interdisciplinaryeducationintheageofassessment.NewYork&London:Routledge.

Newell,W.H.(1992).Academicdisciplinesandundergraduateinterdisciplinaryeducation:LessonsfromtheSchoolofInterdisciplinaryStudiesatMiamiUniversity,Ohio.EuropeanJournalofEducation,27(3),211‐221.

Norman,D.A.(1988).ThePsychologyOfEverydayThings.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Norman,D.A.(2003).Cognitiveengineering.InD.A.Norman&S.Draper(Eds.),UserCenteredSystemDesign:NewPerspectivesonHuman‐ComputerInteraction(pp.31‐61).HillsdaleandLondon:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Nowotny,H.(2001).ThePotentialofTransdisciplinarity.InJ.T.Klein,W.Grossenbacher‐Mansuy,R.Haeberli,R.W.Scholz&M.Welti(Eds.),Transdisciplinarity:JointProblemSolvingamongScience,Technology,andSociety.AnEffectiveWayforManagingComplexity(pp.67‐80).Basel:BirkhäuserVerlag.

Oliver,M.,Roberts,G.,Beetham,H.,Ingraham,B.,Dyke,M.,&Levy,P.(2007).Knowledge,societyandperspectivesonlearningtechnology.InG.Conole&M.Oliver(Eds.),Contemporaryperspectivesine‐learningresearch:themes,methodsandimpactonpractice(pp.21‐37).Oxon:Routledge.

Østreng,W.(2010).Sciencewithoutboundaries:interdisciplinarityinresearch,societyandpolitics.Lanham,Md.:UniversityPressofAmerica

53

Patton,M.Q.(2003).Utilization‐FocusedEvaluation(4thed.).ThousandOaks,CA.:SagePublications.

Piaget,J.(1951).ThePsychologyofIntelligence.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

Rogoff,B.(2003).TheCulturalNatureofHumanDevelopment.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rogoff,B.,&Lave,J.(Eds.).(1999).EverydayCognition:ItsDevelopmentinSocialContext.Cambridge,Mass.:TheMITPress.

Romm,N.(1998).Interdisciplinarypracticeasreflexivity.SystemicPracticeandActionResearch,11(1),63‐77.

Salomon,G.(1997).Distributedcognitions:Psychologicalandeducationalconsiderations(2nded.).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Scanlon,E.,Colwell,C.,Cooper,M.,&DiPaulo,T.(2004).Remoteexperiments,re‐versioningandre‐thinkingsciencelearning.ComputersandEducation,43(1‐2),153‐163.

Scanlon,E.,O’Shea,T.,Smith,R.,O’Malley,C.,&Taylor,J.(1993).Runningintherain‐canasharedsimulationhelptodecide?PhysicsEducation,28,107‐113.

Scardamalia,M.,&Bereiter,C.(2006).Knowledgebuilding:theory,pedagogyandtechnology.InR.K.Sawyer(Ed.),CambridgeHandbookoftheLearningSciences(pp.97‐118).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Schön,D.A.(1987).EducatingtheReflectivePractioner:TowardsaNewDesignforTeachingandLearningWithintheProfessions.SanFranciso:Joey‐Bass,Inc.

Sefton‐Green,J.(Ed.).(1999).YoungPeople,CreativityandNewTechnologies:thechallengeofthedigitalarts.London:Routledge.

Slaughter,S.(2007).Academicfreedomandtheneo‐liberalstate.InP.Hutchenson(Ed.),AcademicFreedom.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Spelt,E.J.H.,Biemans,H.,Tobi,H.,Luning,P.A.,&Mulder,M.(2009).TeachingandLearninginInterdisciplinaryHigherEducation:ASystematicReview.EducationalPsychologyReview,21,365‐378.

Suchman,L.A.(1987).Plansandsituatedactions:theproblemofhuman‐machinecommunicationCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Szostak,R.(2007).Howandwhytoteachinterdisciplinaryresearchpractice.JournalofResearchPractice,3(2),ArticleM17.

Wertsch,J.V.(1991).VoicesoftheMind.ASocioculturalApproachtoMediatedAction.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Winters,N.,&Mor,Y.(2008).Idr:Aparticipatorymethodologyforinterdisciplinarydesignintechnologyenhancedlearning.Computers&Education,50(2),579‐600.

WInters,N.,&Mor,Y.(2008).IDR:aparticipatorymethodologyforinterdisciplinarydesignintechnologyenhancedlearning.Computers&Education,50(20).

54

Wolpert,D.H.(2003).CollectiveIntelligence.InD.B.Fogel&C.J.Robinson(Eds.),ComputationalIntelligence:TheExpertsSpeak(pp.245‐260).

Ylijoki,O.‐H.(2000).DisciplinaryCulturesandtheMoralOrderofStudying‐ACase‐studyofFourFinnishUniversityDepartments.HigherEducation,39,339‐362.