Making collaborative work work
At the end of August, I spent a long weekend in Utah as one of eight social scientist observers on a Social Science Research Council project called the Snowbird Charrette. Diana Rhoten of SSRC and Ed Hackett of the National Science Foundation and Arizona State University designed the project, with funding from NSF, to study how interdisciplinary teams of graduate students in the environmental sciences solved research problems collaboratively. The teams had three days to design and propose a research proposal to address a real-world environmental problem that had been outlined by a panel of experts. It was an opportunity for them to interact with experts in their fields and to practice developing the type of large-scale collaboration that is typical in most branches of natural and environmental sciences.
As an observer, my job was to collect ethnographic data on one of eight teams of environmental scientists. I observed them collaborating intensely, negotiating disciplinary boundaries, and getting a sense of how to design a huge, long-term, expensive project that drew on their diverse strengths. Frankly, I walked away feeling very jealous of the participants' opportunity to collaborate in such a supportive environment. Social scientists may promote the idea of interdisciplinarity, but is interdisciplinary work rewarded with publications and job offers? Are social science departments and academic institutions conducive to long-term, large-scale collaboration? Are we rewarded for doing problem oriented research or are we chiefly rewarded for making contributions to the discipline? Why (and do?) epidemiologists, economists, and psychologists have more success in influencing policy debates than qualitative sociologists?
These are big questions – perhaps you, dear reader, would like to challenge my assumptions, attempt some answers, or pose some questions of your own.
posted by David Schleifer at 11:32 AM
3 Comments:
As one of the other observers at the Snowbird Charrette, I too was jealous of the encouragement these teams were getting to work out their differences across disciplinary and, in my case, value lines. I second David's suggestion that charrettes such as this should be set up to address social problems as well as environmental/scientific ones.
Two other points as well. First, these environmental scientists, though dedicated to their causes and hypothetically endowed with large sums to design a study, treated the social components of their proposed solutions incredibly simplistically. Situations where there may have been deeply entrenched interests at play were to be addressed merely with focus groups or interviews. Here we social scientsists could really contribute our knowledge about the complexities of organizational and social behavior to aid in the design of solutions that are not only scientifically-grounded but also socially implementable.
Which brings me to point two, how interested are we in joining forces with environmental scientists (or epidemiolgists, psychologists and economists) to influence policy? I think we as sociologists need to develop a higher appreciation of the ways our potential collaborators articulate and define their ideas and worldviews before we can contribute effectively alongside.
Along with David and Ingrid, I also participated in the Snowbird Charrette as an observer. I agree that participating in a charrette would be an exciting prospect for young sociologists (or sociologists at any stage in their careers, for that matter). But I also think that the experience gave me an appreciation for collaborative research (the work that we, as observers, did, rather than the work that the environmentalists were there to do).
There is little opportunity (in my experience) for graduate students to participate in larger qualitative research projects. While we may write collaborative papers with faculty and other students or we may conduct research for a faculty member or ourselves, we are less likely to conduct research alongside other sociologists. In my experience, it also fairly unusual to have the opportunity to work with graduate students from other universities. This project gave us the opportunity to do both of these things, which was quite rewarding.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Charrette was one of the most problematic. The organizers did not inform the scientists about the social science aspect of the project until the night that they arrived in Snowbird. Some of the scientists reacted negatively to this idea and it prompted a lot of interesting debates amongst the social science observers.
So while the project offered us an exciting opportunity to work collaboratively, it also demonstrated some of the problems of collaborative research. Many of us asked over this weekend: How do we manage concerns about a project research design once the project has begun? How do we manage the negative (and sometimes hostile) reactions of the scientist participants to our presence (especially since they had not expected our presence originally)? How can we balance our role as silent observers (we were told to act as observers who decidedly did NOT participate in the scientific discussions) and our concerns that our scientists might quit working out of resentment towards the research design?
Ultimately, I found this experience very rewarding and challenging. It gave me the opportunity to meet other sociology grad students from across the country (and get to know one from my program better!) and also to participate in an interesting research project. I also think it has encouraged me to think about ways to create more collaborative research projects.
I too attended the Snowbird Charrette in late August, albeit as an observer of a different sort. I was the sole journalist present, and I reported on the charrette for the science journal Nature. The story can be found at the following link (although unfortunately it requires a subscription to view): http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060918/full/443265a.html. The title of the story is 'A Testing Experience', but you might be able to access it for free at this URL:
http://www.nature.com/materials/news/features/060921/journal/443265a.html
The charrette was also of great interest to me because I just completed an NSF interdisciplinary program known as 'Carbon, Climate & Society Initiative' during my master's degree in journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. So these students experienced a miniature, condensed, 2.5-day version of what my three-year fellowship was like.
I was only able to speak with the students after-hours, i.e. after 5 o'clock, and then only when I could catch up with them over dinner and drinks or hiking! But it was interesting to observe that the students seemed to go through the same phases in 2.5 days that we went through over the course of 2.5-3 years. In particular, in my fellowship, we literally spent the entire first YEAR trying to nail down our problem or questions that we could all be equally invested in, and to determine what our "deliverable" or product would be. On a similar scale, several of these groups spent the first day doing the same thing at the charrette.
Many of the students remarked to me that the value they would take away from the charrette experience was the group process, more so than the product. Even in such a short period of time, several said they learned things about collaborating that they would apply to future situations. Likewise, the majority of us in my fellowship also determined in the long run that the process of working together was of greater value than the end product (although we were pretty happy with the product, too!)
I was struck that there was not a stronger social science dimension to the groups at the charrette. It seemed that they gave a nod toward it but didn't quite know how to incorporate the social sciences. I think it would have been interesting for them to tackle an actual problem that was handed to them, rather than having to spend so much time determining what their scientific question would be. For example, I think we might have seen a stronger social science component if they had been presented with a specific problem, such as restoration of the coastal wetlands around New Orleans, or the sustainable re-building of New Orleans.
But I love the fact that opportunities like these are creating opportunities for cross-disciplinary discussion. I was even amazed to find out how much of my job as a journalist is actually MUCH like that of a sociologist, after having dinner with three other sociologists at the charrette.
All in all, it was fun. My role there was a bit awkward at first, because some of the students already felt a bit like lab rats in the beginning and were a little gun-shy about talking to me. But once they got into their element, they seemed to want to share about their experiences.
Post a Comment
<< Home