|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 34
Experience With
Interdisciplinay Research
THE CURRICULA PROJECTS OF THE 1960s
Scope
In fiche IS years between 1959 and 1974, the National
Science Foundation invested more than $1.5 billion in
science education; the budget increased from $61.3
million in 1959 to $134.5 million in fiche Peale year of
1968 asked then declined to $78.5 million in 1974. By far
the largest fraction of the funds went to support ~crain-
ing activities for individuals - ° fellowships and trainee -
ships for graduate students in the sciences and insti°
tutes for secondary school ~ceachers, the latter repress
sensing 50 percent or more of the annual investment
during the late l9S0s and early 1960s. While ache train-
ing programs and institutes were traditional in form
( i o @ o SO conducted in university settings and largely by
university departments and faculty) a third program the
eOUES@ Content improvement program, represented a new
social invention (see Philip Handler quoting Harvey
Brooks9 National Science Foundation, 1975)0
Although fiche curriculum improvement program never
exceeded $20 million per year in size arid generally
represented around 10 percent of the total NSF science
education budge t9 it was responsible for the development
of nationally recognized reform curricula in ~aa~chematics
and science for all levels of precollege education The
character! sties of these curricula 9 their effects on
students, and their impact on education are still being
analyzed today. In this chapter, we do not attempt deco
recapitulate and assess the reform curricula themselves
but consider two aspects of the pro] acts supported in the
course content improvement program: their ability to
34
OCR for page 35
A:
it:
35
attract outstanding scientists to work on precollege
science and mathematics education and the extent of
interdisciplinary collaboration.
lithe curriculum development pro] ect of the 1960s was
perhaps inspired in part by the Manhattan Project. The
leading figure in the first of the projects supported by
the National Science Foundation was Jerrold Zacharias,
who had also been one of the principals in the Manhattan
Project. His concept of a curriculum project made pos-
sible the participation of talent drawn from far beyond
the university or any other single institution. The
generally prestigious setting encouraged researchers
eminent in their own scientific disciplines to lead and
become actively involved in developing precollege science
curricula. The principal work structure, summer writing
conferences and workshops, brought together individuals
from different specialties to create new learning mata-
rials. All the projects were characterized by active
collaboration among university resesrchers9 college
faculty, and school teachers from a particular disci-
pline. At later stages, artists, film makers, designers,
and professional writers and editors were also involved.
While the initial high school projects generally did
not cross disciplinary boundaries, this focus changed as
course content improvement projects for ]`mior high
school and elementary school were undertaken. For
example, the Elementary School Science Study in~rol~red
cognitive scientists, physicists, biologists, chemists,
mathematicians, engineers, a philosopher of science, and
educational researchers, as well as the mix of institu-
tional affiliations and professions represented in the
high school pro] acts . Individuals from scientific dis -
ciplines who worked in such a project shared its philo-
sophical and pedagogical approach but tended to develop
particular units of curriculum strands grounded in their
own discipline, rather than developing interdisciplinary
curricula. Interestingly, the model for all the curric-
ulum projects, the Physical Science Study Committee--
started by Zacharias in 1956, before Sputnik--tried to
develop a 2-year physical science course to replace the
traditional chemistry-physics sequence in senior high
school, but gave up the attempt in favor of reforming
just the physics course.
Another type of collaboration emerged as the testing
of the new curricula in classrooms began deco provide a
laboratory for educational research: Lee Cronbach ~ then
at the Uni~rersi~cy of Illinois) worked with several of the
OCR for page 36
36
projects to design appropriate evaluation strategies;
Myron Atkin (then also at the University of Illinois)
became interested in research on schools through his work
in curricula development; Joseph Schwab (School of Educa"
Scion, University of Chicago3, Fletcher Watson (School of
Education, Harvard), and Gilbert Finlay (School of Educa-
tion, University of Tllinols) were drawst into the enter-
prise as code~relopers and later as evaluators of the
whole reform effort O lithe School Mathematics Study Group
(SMSG) condoned a major national longitudinal study of
macnemac~cat anttities in an attempt to "turn mathematics
education into an experimental science, n in the words of
EoG. Begle, SMSG's director O
~ . . O ~ . . . ~
This S-year study (1962~
1967) brought together mathematicians, paychometricians,
and educational researchers and provided the training
ground for many of the most prominent researchers in
mathematics education today.
A somewhat different approach to interdisciplinary
work was taken by Robert Karplus, who became as recog"
nized for his knowledge and application of Bruner'n And
Piaget's work in cognitive science as he was for physics
research. The science curriculum for grades l-6 that
emerged under his leadership (really two separate pro-
grin one in physical science, one in life science)
incorporated KarpluS'8 understanding of cognitive
_ ~ _ __ , ~_ e~
~0._
_ _
.
Development as well as basic scientific coDc@ptSo
Later curriculum studies were explicitly set up to
bring together individuals from she behavioral and social
sciences with individuals from the natural sciences. For
example, Ha Ward ProJect Physics (18~.E called ProJect
Physics Courser not only emohanI~.d ~ her "A-~^t-4 ^-
-
of the subject, including its historical and societal
contexts but also involved researchers from the social
and behavioral sciences in inseruceional deacon and
~J ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ _ ~&
evaluation. As another example, the Individualized
Science Instructional System, started in 19729 had on its
advisory board psychologists, an anthropologist, an econo-
mist, a sociologist a political scientist. and educa
tional researchers as well as chemists9 physicists, life
SGi~n1:i8~89 an oceanographer, and an engineer O The
objective was to develop minicourses for grades 10-12
that could be put together flexibly either into
multidisciplinary courses or biological or physical
science programs, all with considerable emphasis on
social implications. Perhaps because of the ambitious
goals, or because of the timing (after the post-Sputnik
reform effort had lost impetus), or because of the
OCR for page 37
37
attempt to develop multidisciplinary curricula through
units that tried to balance theoretical and applied
science, or because there was no explicit slot for them
in the high school science course sequence, project
materials did not enjoy the widespread use in schools
that earlier, more discipline-based curricula had
experienced.
In the decade since the decline of NSF's course con-
tent improvement program, the evidence on the quality and
effects of reform curricula has been sifted and assessed
numerous times. Some critics have contended that the
secondary school materials are mismatched to the compe-
tencies of students and teachers (cog., Axons, 1981~.
Others found the projects were successful in producing
text and laboratory materials of high quality from which
many students leavened more and better than from the mate-
rials that they replaced (eOgO 9 Shymanaky et al., 19831.
Particularly at the elementary level 9 however, i~plemen-
~cation issues - ° the training of teachers and the mainten-
ance of kits and materials for hands-on experiments--were
not successfully addressed.
What can one learn from the experience of the curric
ulna projects of the l950s and 1960s about interdisci-
plinary research and development? What motivated
outstanding scholars to work on these projects? What
incentives were provided? What disincentives were
there? How was participation in a curriculum project
viewed by ache participant's insti~cu~cion, peers, profes-
sional community? How did views differ depending on
one' s discipline and type on institution (research
university, college, school)? What helped or hindered
participants from different university departments, from
precollege institutions, from a variety of professional
associations, and from private industry in working to-
gether effectively?
The committee asked a dozen or so of the key partici-
pants in the projects to comment on these question and
also on their perceptions as to whether ant how condi-
tions are different today; see Appendix for letter of
inquiry. Some of the views of the respondents are
presented below.
Context
The national mood, consensus on the need for educa-
tional reform, and the wartime experience of successful
OCR for page 38
- ~
38
problem°~olving by large ted of scientists provided the
foundation for the curricula development work.
Me National Mood
The mood was one of "candy. Robert Davis:
This was the time of the Peace Corps, of the
beginning of the o~oon-landing space efforts etc.
Great things were seen to Abe possible On. spoke of
"New Frontiers O ~ ~ new and more optimis~clc role was
seen for the federal government O O · · People really
believed that better education and a bet~cer society
were achievable, provided we made the right decisions
and did the rift things.
JOHR Truxal:
In the 1960s, outstanding scholars worked on
curricula projects partly because of the leadership
provided by Jerry Zacharias and the BITT group, but
mare because of the national climate. In 1965, for
example, when space arid mili~cary funding was still
easy to ob~cais~, several of us began a switch from
-~pace efforts to work with New York's newly elected
mayors John Lindsay9 as we Cried to apply our back-
grounds to urban problem. Today9 there seeom deco note
to be no comparable social and ethical forces on the
40°year~old engineer becoming bored with more and
more abstract theory in his/her field.
Consensus on the Need
John Mayor notes that squire a number of scholars
worked on the projects because of their recognition of
the critical steed for improvement of science education."
And Gibson Seaborg:
First, there was a perception of a national
probleo'9 a serious deterioration in-the quality of
educations including in chemistry. Second, at least
in the case of chemistry, ache whole profession was
behind the reform effort. lathe American Chemical
Society had studied the problem through a specially
convened committee which urged action to reform ache
curriculum.
OCR for page 39
39
The World War II Experience
Robert Davis:
~ have always believed that ache true start of
the revision movement was World War IT and the
Manhattan Project--physicists, precariously in the
habit of working alone, winch relatively inexpensive
equipment, discovered that a very large number of
physicists could work together in a de~c-ermined effort
~Q achieve a quick solution to an Agent "practical"
problem, while commanding large resources . This
entailed a change of self-concept, and after the end
of World War II this approach was focused on other
goals. The extreme inadequacy of U.S. education made
it an obvious and appropriate target.
Management and Resources
NSF used a direct management style that emphasized
the recruitment of outstanding people for the curriculum
improvement projects and the expectation that high-
quality curricula would be produced. Thy internal
management of the projects was similarly result ori-
ented. Adequate financial support was provided by NSF
over the life of a project to ensure orderly progress of
the work. Glenn Seaborg:
Harry Kelly of NSF recruited very able indi~rid-
uals from all around the country, and between ACS
[American Chemical Society and NSF urging, no one
who was asked to work on CHEM Study turned down the
opportunity. Money was not an issue--whatever was
needed was made available.... There was a con-
sensus on what needed to be done; there was leader-
ship and good management both in Washington and in
ache individual projects; and there was willingness
oco support the effort financially and otanageri-
ally.... Todlay'~ situation appears considerably
different. Although the quality of education may be
of equally great concern, there is not as broad
involvement, and those people who are mo~civa~ced to
work on precollege education once compete for scarce
funds .
There was a con
OCR for page 40
40
And John In~xal:
Certainly the concept of the long-ters NSF come
mitment encouraged personal Commitments ant allowed
cautious, step-by-step course development. I have
the impression (perhaps untrue) that he Foundation
took a more active role in defining, a project and
encouraging involvement of key people O . . .
Robert Davis Snakes similar points:
asked on written reports
NSF O ~ . expected reasonable problem d@fi-
aitions to emerge, and hey expec~ced genuirle progress
to be made. . O . [NSF] glade Judgmeslts based on the
actual work being done . . . NOT solely on proposals
This can be as important
differes`ce-° the best R&D people are not necessarily
the most persuasive report writers O . . . NSF [was
willing] to accept proposals in a form determined by
the proposer, instead of requiring the proposer to
conform to comae predetermined form that D'ight not be
appropriate in a given case.
Jerrold Zacharias:
Effective research in education cannot be done
on the cheap. A system that nuns at an annual expen-
diture of some ho hundred billion dollars per year
cannot be repaired for anything but a reasonable per-
centage of that amount. So before you ~cacicle ache
problems of incentive, collaboration, or institu-
tional prided you D'USt know where fading stands--the
available pattern, its management, its robustness and
oh@ soundness or frailty of planning for coomitted
expenditures .
Involvement of Outstanding Scholars
The general climate and the management and resources
available for the work helped draw outs~candis~g individ-
uals to the enterprise; their presence helped draw
others. Once these people were involved, the intel-
lectual challenge kept many at the cask of curricula
reform for a long period. Some prestigious universities
also recognized ache work as i'eportant, although others
did not. With so'se exceptions, only fully tenured
OCR for page 41
41
faculty could afford the risk of spending time on etuca-
tional improvement rather than on research in their dis-
cipline .
Motivation for Involvement
Henry Pollak:
[There were] two phases to the involvement: (a)
coming to the first seer workshop to try writing
curriculum materials9 and (b) coming back and persist-
ing in the effort. Undoubtedly, the initial irwolve-
ment was sparked by money, but then people recognized
the tremendous intellectual challenge in the work of
taking a piece of mathematics and teaching it effec-
tively to precollege students while keeping ache mathe
matics honed This turned out to be as coup as re-
search in mathematics per se.... The unexpected,
exciting intellectual content of the curriculum work
kept top-notch mathematicians engaged in it seer
after seer.
John Mayor:
Those projects which were associated with a pres-
tigious professional organization . . . or with a
prestigious university . . . had through their associ
ation an additional incentive. Adequate financia
compensation for six or eight weeks seer assignment
in a pleasant environment such as Palo Alto or
Boulder was an incentive for some.
Robert Davis:
From every perspective, the NSF-supported cur-
riculum work was clearly a quality operation. The
people 8t NSF were good; the other participants in
PSSC [Physical Science Study Committee], ESS [Elemen-
tary Science Study], etc., were good; at every level
good sense prevailed. and could be expected to pre-
vailO Who would NOT want to work with Jerrold
Zacharias, Philip Morrison, Francis Friedman, Robert
Karplus, Andrew Gleason, and Frederick Mosteller?
-
OCR for page 42
42
How Involvement Was Viewed
Henry Pollak:
liege were two types of participants from the
research community: full professors who were estab-
lished in their positions ~ ~ O e 0, senior faculty) and
a sprinting of mathematicians from industry NOR-
tanured faculty could not take the risk of straying
from their research if they hoped Leo get promoted
As far as ache view of peers was concerned tile
at~citude was O Elf you don't tell me [that you are
Uncolored in non-research activi~cies], I won't hold it
against youO" The situation Iasy be somewhat improved
now; there are institutions of higher education that
give recognition to Junior faculty for activities
other tears research, e . g., the quality of their teach
ing' echoic involvement in faculty and campus affairs,
contributions to precollege education. However, it
probably remains true that attitude have not changed
at the top 100 or so research universities....
The problem of getting outstanding scientists and
mathematicians involved in precollege education
certainly hasn'~c been solved yet.
John Mayor remember that insti~cutlons generally
favored participation,, research institutions arose times
excepted ~ However, he assumes that n the attitudes are a
bit less favorable now than 20 years ago, perhaps Just
because it is being 'done again' and not everyone is sure
that it [bringing curricula up to date] was sufficiently
successful the first time. ~
Glenn Seaborg stood in a special position:
As chancellor of Berkeley, I could ensure that
productive young researchers like Pimentel were able
to continue their research while working on curric-
ulu~ projects. Usually, this was accomplished
through temporary reduction or elimination of their
teaching toads O Working on curriculum projects was
recognized as a professional contributions at least
for CHEM Study, and careers did not suffer; in fact,
many careers were enhanced by the national visibility
of the work. Today, creative researchers would re-
eeive less credit for getting involved in precollege
education and taking time away from their research
and university teaching.
OCR for page 43
43
Gerald Holton:
At least at Harvard, our participation in the
Project Physics Course during the whole long period
of initial development and testing (1964-1970) was
viewed favorably by the relevant administrators as
well as by my colleagues in the physics department.
In good part this may have stemmed from the long
history of involvement of the university, and of
physicists in particular, in innovative educational
work. . . . In this respect, I believe the attitudes
here have remained positive.
Amount and Nature of Collaborative Work
From the beginning, teachers as well as university
faculty were involved in the work, though perception of
the teachers' role appears to vary among respondents.
lathe original high school projects were focused on a
single discipline; later projects often brought together
scholars from several disciplines. For the most part,
educational researchers and administrators were not
involved.
Henry Pollak:
Essentially, there was no collaborative work in-
volving other disciplines as far as the high school
courses were concerned. For each of these, like
physics, the emphasis was on reforming the instruc-
tional content and teacher training according to the
views of individuals from within the specific dis-
cipline, e.g., physicists. Also, learning psychology
was not very advanced, at least regarding the teach-
ing of mathematics; decisions on pedagogic strategies
had to rely on the judgments of experienced teach-
era. This second factor has changed over the last
two decades; cognitive scientists as well as experi-
enced teachers have something to contribute to cur-
rent reform efforts. . . . Collaboration was present
in the 1960s in the efforts to create integrated
science/mathematics curricula for the elementary
level, notably USMES (Unified Science and Mathematics
for Elementary Schools). These collaborations were
successful as far as the curriculum materials went;
the reason these materials made little headway in the
. .
OCR for page 44
44
schools is that the needed effort deco train 102 mil
lion elementary school teacher in how to use the
materials was never under~caken.
o
Pollak also discusses the roles of par~cicipan~ce from
different types of institutions:
In School Mathematics Study Group projects,
there was a very important collaborative effort
between mathematicians, teachers, and educators.
Working closely together for two months (in the
sister study sessl o~) Die ant that 8 degree of com-
munication and understanding developed between urai-
versity and school people on what was to be taught
and how it was to be taught that did not exist before
and has not existed since. Two-tay meetings, confer-
ences, etc. don't accomplish this objective, since it
takes at least a week before people stop proclaiming
echoic own agendas and listen to someone else.
Glenn Seaborg:
No collaborative work with people from other
disciplines was involved, because ache top priority
was to re£orm the high-school chemistry course O
However9 from the begirming ~ceaciaer-~ were full
partners in the projec~c9 their role was critical in
keeping the universi~cy chemists in touch with the
reality of the classroom and ensuring that the
materials were teachable. Also, chemistry faculty
from smaller colleges--institutions that concentrate
on teaching rather than research~°were involved,
especially in institutes and other teacher training
activities. ~e collaboration of individuals from
these three types of institutions- -schools 9 colleges,
universities- -was key to the success of CHE:If Study
and similar collaboration will be needed today.
Arthur Livermore:
One of the strong pair of ache Chemical Bond
Approach (CBA) project was that We lnvol~red high
school chemistry teachers right from the start. A
weak point was that we didn't listen to them as much
as we should have. . . . I don't Mink any attempt
to improve science education will be successful if
the recipients of the "improvements aren' ~ involved
OCR for page 46
46
cannot be applied to other disciplines including edu-
cational researchers. It was difficult to persuade
physicists or biologists to work on mathestatics proJ°
ects or to keep theo' once they started. Similarly,
mathematician contributed little or nothing to pro]
ects in the other sciences. In general, little
cross~disciplinary collaboration was perceived as
r~ecessary in the 1960sc The climate for collabora-
ti~re research is surely bet~ear now, ad in By view,
the need much greater.
Scow
Obviously, the context of IS years ago cannot be
recreated. Optimism about the ability to solve the
ration' educational problems has diminished, while
priorities have shifted to a concern with mathematical
and scientific literacy for alla rather than emphasizing
primarily preprofessionsl education. This new priority
requires siren greater emphasis on collaborative work draw-
ing on several disciplines and professions. Furthermore,
current management styles and the funding exigencies char-
acteristic of the relevant federal agencies probably pre-
clude the style of project that produced ache reform cur-
ricula of ache 1960s ~ Given these factors, adaptations or
new social inventions are needed for conducting interdis-
ciplinary research that focus on current priorities; deal
with ache managerial and fiscal constraints of the 1980s;
take advantage of advances in the social and behavioral
sciences relevant to improving mathematics, sciences and
techs~c~logy educations particularly the work on teaching
and learning in these fields 9 Assad structure participation
of teacher administrators, and other practitioners in a
fashion that will alleviate the difficulties of imples~ent-
ing educational improvements. Of particular concern in
this connection is the paucity of courses that represen~c
effective subjec~c°natter preparation for either preser-
vice or in~sezvice teachers°°a high priority for s~ul~cidis-
ciplinary research and developo~ent.
EXAMPLES OF INTERDTSCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN OTHEt FIELDS
The problem of how to involve scientists in interdis°
ciplinary research is not unique to education. Strat-
egies and incentives that have led So success in other
OCR for page 47
47
fields can be examined for their possible application in
education, provided differences in circumstance are
clearly kept in mind.
The Manhattan ProJect is often cited as the classic
example of successful collaboration of scientists,
mathematicians, engineers, and military professionals,
though this collaboration was certainly not without
tension. A very important factor in keeping the work
going was that all the participants were highly committed
to a specific and intensely patriotic goal. The crisis
context of World War lI is probably impossible to re-
create for mathematics and science education today O
Other factors that may be more replicabla were Robert
Oppenheimer's leadership and commitment to using multi
disciplinary rather than parallel teams, his personal
involvement in the recruitment of eminent scientists from
different disciplines, the guarantee of sdeq''-te funding,
and minimal constraint on ache research process by bureau-
cra~cic or military procedures. These same factors also
characterized the curricula projects of the 1960so
Research involving several scientific and engineer-
ing disciplines in cooperative work is the aim of the
National Materials Program, created in 1960 with the
establishment of interdisciplinary Laboratories O By
1969, more than 600 faculty members and 2,400 graduate
students were participating in materials research in the
12 laboratories, and several thousand research papers
were being produced each year. The original method of
funding the laboratories through block grants to univer-
sities rather than through grants to individual investi-
gators had the goal of stimulating interdisciplinary
administration of funds and delegation of authority to
local institutions (Schwartz, 1985~. in 1972 the require
meets were changed further to ensure that not only each
laboratory but also individual projects would involve
investigators from more than one discipline. Program
elements that have helped promote interdisciplinary
activity are Joint design and development of facilities
by scientists from different disciplines, seminars by
invited speakers, and inhouse seminars to help educate
scientists about the cooperating fields outside their own
disciplines .
Environmental impact assessments, which have been
funded by government agencies for several decades, often
require the expertise of specialists from the natural
sciences, engineering, and social sciences. Some of the
assessments have failed to integrate the findings of the
-
-
OCR for page 48
_ _ ~
48
specialists involved, but others provide examples of
effective interdisciplinary research (Williams et al. ,,
1986; Burdge and Opryazek, 1986~. Key factors in effect
tire research include: problem definition Trough inter.
disciplinary participation, agreement on a conceptual
framework that encompasses the various planned research
ac~clvities, a decision-mal:ing structure promoting integra-
~eion of work toward the common goals strong managemen~c
from a principal investigator with sufficient time for
the project regular mean of complication and having
offices and laboratories physically c10869 recognition
and rewards front the institution for interdisciplinary
activity, and a plan for dissemination of results to a
variety of poSen~cial user groups.
Technology es sesament is a relatively new form of
interdisciplinary research often involving social sci-
entists, economists, engineers, natural scientists,
systems specialists, and lawyers. Rossini et al. (1981)
identified several conditions fostering effective collabo-
ration. flexible boundaries Tong units so as deco promote
eross~disciplinary team formation and allow for rewards
for interdisciplinary activity, careful bounding of the
problem before research begins in order deco control the
scope of the study, and communication among researchers
from different fields and some waders~canding of the
interrelationships of the disciplines involved
Scientific research in health and medicine is another
area that frequently calls for interdisciplinary inves-
tigations, including collaboration between physicians and
scien~cists. The National Institute of General Medical
Services (NIGHS) provides support for biomedical research
training that reflects this orien~eatio'~ toward ir`terdis-
ciplinary research O Training grants are awarded to insti-
mtions of hither education for support of predoctoral
and postdoctoral trainees in specific areas of research.
lithe goal of the predoctoral program is to provide ~crain-
ees broader access to thesis research opportunities
across discipline and department lineal; the postdoctoral
training program focuses on ~ad~ranced and specialized
areas of research and opportuni~cles to study clinical
problems (NT=S Announcemen~c, 1984)0 Applicant univer-
si~cies must provide a detailed plan for training, cri°
teria for trainee selection, mechanism for quality
control, and stridence of plans for the cooperative
involvement of faculty Sabers front several t~parto~ents.
FOE example, the pre~loctoral program in genetics involves
collaboration of scientists in chemistry, biochemistry,
OCR for page 49
49
cell biology, population and behavioral aspects of
heredity, and developmental biology.. For another exatn-
ple, the postdoctoral program for training scientists in
trauma and burn research includes trauma surgeons or burn
specialists as well as scientists in physiology, biochem-
istry, immunology, and microbiology. Another postdoc-
toral program is oriented toward new M.Do~ to provide
them with experience in the methodology and conduct of
clinical research on the effects of drug actions in
humans, involving Icnowledge and techniques in such areas
as pharmacology, biochemistry, physiology, and analytical
methodology. In fiscal l9B5, the predoctoral program sup-
ported 840 trainees in about 40 universities at a cost of
more than $5 million for stipends alone - - a substantial
federal commitment to training in interdisciplinary
research.
SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Lee experience with interdisciplinary research can be
interpreted in the more general context of what is known
about diversity in social system. The same basic issues
arise in collaborative research that are inherent in
social ins~citutions of any complexity:
differences among
the collaborators, various possibilities for organizing
the existing diversity, the influence upon the collabo-
ration of the wider contexts of history and society.
The differences among the various participants are
not necessarily a problem, though difference is often
construed that way. Rather, diversity among collabora-
tors is a resource for doing the work; it is the group's
reason for being. When difference is taken to be a pro-
duction resource rather than an inhibitor to produce
tivity, diversity within work groups is seen in a new
light. If there were no differences, there would be no
need for structure, for articulation, for action, for
knowledge exchange and transfer. Some of the tensions
and trade-offs that are inherent in organizing diverse
collaborators are discussed below.
Difference and Distance
Multispecialty collaboration involves differences in
perspectives, in authority and prestige, and in group and
individual interest among the collaborators. The differ-
ences in perspective involve values and intellectual
OCR for page 50
50
positions: a physicist and a sociologist are likely to
have differing priorities and viewpoints deriving from
their professional specializations (HODGES 1961;
Druclcman and Zechmeister, 19731. lathe perspectives of
these university researchers say also differ from the
professional perspectives of those outside the univer-
sity, a.g., curriculum developers' school ad~ainistraeors,
and teachers. There may also be differences in perspec-
tive that are the result of ethnic9 racial, and social-
class subcultures to which the various collaborators
belong (Campbell and Levine' 1972~.
Another kind of distance is difference in authority
and prestige (Perrow, 19639 Tuscany, 1977; Hollander,
1980~. Some people and organizations may have a wide
range of action available to them because of their of
authority and prestige, while other parties in the col-
laboration may have a narrow range of option. Moreover'
perceptions of authority and prestige slay vary among the
participants, for examples a teacher's view of a school
administratorts authority may differ from that of a
research physicist.
There are also differences of individual and group
interests--cos~cs and benefits, for example-~among col-
laborators (Aldrich, 1972~. A ~iversityts interests
(and the career interests of the university faculty
member) may differ from those of a textbook publisher arid
from those of an elementary school teacher. Not only may
there be differences in costs and benefits among the
various parties, but Scheme interests may be realized at
different points during the course of the collaboration.
In a realistic attempt to Sect various specialties
in Joint effort, all these kinds of differences must be
taken into account organizationally O ~e presence of
difference and dis~cance does not have deco lead to prob-
lems, provided the work has been appropriately organized.
Organizing Diversity
Wha~c to do with the differences? Ore response is to
make room in any program intended deco foster innovation
for a few visionaries who persist with their iconoclastic
notions in the face of organizational pressures and the
accepted consensus. Most efforts, however, will have to
resolve the problem of coordination among different
people, specializations, and ins tisutions (~:hilde, 1971;
Aldrich and Herkes, 1977; Aldrich, 1979)0 The problem
OCR for page 51
51
consists of the trade-off between "too much. and "too
littler: When coordination attempts to produce unifor-
mity among the specialties, the organization can lose its
capacity to do complex, interdigitated tasks; when coordi
nation is inadequate, the work of the various parts is
not articulated, and the capacity of the organization deco
do complex work is inhibited. In either cases the work
suffers. Coordination is costly in terms of time and
money, and, unfortunately, the most flexible kinds of
coordination may be the most costly.
The matter is complicated further in that the costs
and benefits to the diverse parties in a collaboration
may be realized in different ways and at different times
during the course of collaboration. Consequently, it is
especially important that all parties try to be as clear
as possible about the nature and limits of the task on
which they are collaborating. This necessity for clarity
does not mean that the table may not undergo redefinition
as the work proceeds, but only that all ache collaborators
be papacy to and understand the changes. Though clarity
in itself may not be a sufficient condition for success-
ful collaboration, Judging on the basis of ache examples
described above it appears to be a necessary one.
A quite different option for dealing with the trade-
offs between specialization and coordination is to use
parallel organization to accomplish the overall aims of
the work (Mulford and Rogers, 1982~. In some cases,
parallel organizations working in tandem can avoid some
of the monetary and nonmoneta~y costs that would come
from coordinating an integrated task force. This option
is often used in development involving design of a number
of complex elements: coordination takes place at the
overall planning level rather than among individual task
forces. Under such circumstances, however, successful
integration requires fairly tight specification of each
task and an attendant loss of flexibility. In the past,
educational development has been characterized by paral-
lel organization with the frequent consequence that
various innovations have not been well adapted to the
organizations for which they were designed or even to
each other.
Another trade-off involves the advantages and disad-
vantages of differences in relative status and authority
among the collaborators. In the case of collaboration
between scientists and the school personnel, differences
in status are certainly present; some people claim, in
fact, that elementary school teaching is a stigmatized
-
OCR for page 52
S2
occupation. Persons of hither rank (in this Instance,
scientists) may be reluctant to enter into collaboration
with those of lower rant (in this instance, teachers,
school administrators, and curriculum developers) because
they fear loss of prestige. Perhaps more important, they
also may fear loss of opportunity to enhance their career
Stan and level of prestige°-a very real opportunity
cost for academic researchers at the beginning and Addle
of their careers. At the same time, persons of lower
rank may be reluctant to effacer into collaboration with
Chose of higher rank because they are intimidated by
them O
Once a Joint effort has begun, anxiety over the
potential and actual risks involved may be expressed
through outward agreement with the aims of collaboration
accompanied by covert resistance, particularly by lower-
status participants. For example, change in the methods
and content of instruction may be resisted by teachers,
principals,, -students, and parents at the level of a local
school dis~crict, a schools and a classroom. This sort of
resistance may provide part of the explanation for the
seeming anomaly of the schools being at once open to
change and closed to it (Giroux, 1983~. Considerable
research on school organizations and on organizational
change efforts within theta (Be Amass and McLaughlin,
197401975) suggests that teachers may resist passively,
but they do resist, particularly when initiatives for
change come from the central ado~inistra~cion of the school
district (Weick, 1976) . In such attempts at change,
school principals are often caught in the middle O
In their reluctance to change, teachers may be beha~r-
ing quite Legibly since, at least in Ah@ short Am, the
perceived risk of innovation may outweigh the perceived
benefits. Such perceptions of the imoa~dia~cely real ver-
sus possible long-&cerm benefits must be taken account of
in attempts to stimulate change. If changes in science
education are seen by teachers, principals, and parents
as botch educationally Justifiable and not impossibly
costly in earn of increased demands on the teachers'
already severely limited time and energy,, these collabo-
ration to bring about changes might be successful despite
the differences In rank and interest among the various
participants .
OCR for page 53
:
53
WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED
lathe success of past efforts at multispecialty collabo-
ration in the United States, such as the Manhattan Proj-
ect, may be accounted for by ache combination of 0th le-
gi~cimacy of aims and perceived professional and financial
rewards. It seems unlikely that economic investment in
educational research and development will be committed at
the scale and with the foci that characterized military
research and development during World War II. Nor does
the same consensus on aims exist in education. Indeed,
given the nature of the public school system of the
United States, consensus on aims may be difficult to
achieve beyond the global generalities that characterize
education in all the states (Goodlad, 1984) . These con-
ditions must be taken into account in plans to improve
science, mathematics, and technology education, but they
do not make interdisciplinary research impossible.
Interdisciplinary research has definite advantages
over single-discipline research in addressing complex
problems in public policy. The product is more likely deco
represent different approaches to an issue and be ac-
cepted by ache audiences and practitioners that are ex-
pected to implement it. It also has great difficulties
(Sharp, 19831. From reviewing the curriculum development
pro] acts, other examples of interdisciplinary research,
and the more general experience with diversity in organt-
zations, it is possible to identify several lessons about
the development and organization of interdisciplinary
research that are applicable to science and mathematics
education today. Two recent collections of studies on
interdisciplinary research (Chubin et al., 1986; Ep ton et
al., 1983) suppor~c these lessons.
Leadership
The principal inveatiga~cor has been called the key in-
tividual in interdisciplinary research. Not only should
the person chosen as te~ leader be committed to an inter-
disciplinar~r approach and appreciate the perspectives of
different disciplines (Saxberg and Newell, 1983), but he
or she must have the capacity to coordinate the work of
the other members of the team. The leader also needs to
be a strong manager who has sufficient time to commit deco
the project.
OCR for page 54
54
Participation of Disciplinary Scientists
Eminent disciplinary scientists can be recruited to
participate in interdisciplinary research that hat a spe-
cific practical or applied goal. Incentives for recrui~c-
ment include expectations of fading for the term of the
project and a consensus on ache impor~cance of the project
to the nation or the scientific community. It is also
important that all of the team members be favorably dis-
posed coward doing in~cerdisciplinary works
Role of Sponsors
High- quality interdisciplinary research requires,
first, few bureaucratic regulations and requirements and
avoidance of unnecessary government oversight. However,
a specific requirement that research projects have prin-
cipal investigators from two or more field may help
ensure multidisciplinary research teameO Alternatively,
the incentive of potential funding for research on spe-
cific problems only induce universities to form multidis-
ciplinary research team in response (Handsco~abe, 1983~.
~ second critical aspect of fostering interdisciplin-
ary research is the funding agency' s mechanics' for review-
ing proposals O Care must be exercised to draw reviewers
from ~ wide enough spectrum of expertise so that the pro-
posed activities can be Judged from the several perspec-
tives to be represented in ache work. Since in~cerdisci-
plismry work, by definition ~crangresses the bounds of
traditional organization the review process DIUSt, while
redefining its rigor9 also undo - BIBS nontraditio~1 mixes
of expertise appropiately Latched to the sponsor's goals
and program characteristics O The need for care applies
not only to he review of proposals: judgment of work in
progress as well as of completed projects also requires
selection of reviewers who understand the complexities
and special requirements of interdisciplinary work.
Third, funding agencies mat recognize chase inter-
disciplinary research generally requires Lore time and
money, especially in the early stages of a project, than
research within a single discipline (Epson et al., 1983~.
Three mechanisms available to federal agencies that can
provide some stability for interdisciplinary ten are
block grants that allow local institutions to administer
and manage funds, the establisheen~c of interdisciplinary
centers, and the funding of multiyear projects. However,
OCR for page 55
55
each of them robs the sponsoring agency of some control
and flexibility in the disbursement of its funds.
Institutional Settings
Characteristics of institutional structure and mar~age-
ment can facilitate or discourage interdisciplinary Her
search. Institutional settings for interdisciplinary
research can be characterized along two dimensions size
of research team (large or small) and nature of the insti
tution (uni~rersity/academic, other nonprofit, for profit,
interinstitu~ional). Depending upon the scope and pur-
pose of the research, there are advantages and disad-
vantages with each type of setting. Recently, much of
the government-nponsored interdisciplinary research in
universities has been carried out in Organized research
units, n which are usually fairly large, semi-autonomous
branches of universities that have a specific million
(Epson et al., 1983~; the educational research centers
funded by the Department of Education are examples of
such units. The regional laboratories (also funded by
ache Department of Education that assist school systems
with the application of research and improvement of edu-
cational practice are examples of free-standing non-
profit organizations.
No matter what the institutional arrangement, the
host institution needs to create flexible boundaries
between units to facili~cate the participation of dis-
ciplinary scientists . Moreover, institutional recog-
nition and rewards should apply to interdisciplinary
research as well as to discipline-based research. The
current academic reward system based on peer review tends
to lead toward narrow specialization in the choice and
management of research, which continually disadvantages
individuals interested in worlting across boundaries. In
that respect, an analogous problem in Judging interdis-
ciplinary work arises for a host institution as for a
potential sponsor. Where are, however, effective peer
review systems for interdisciplinary research, for
example, for the research conducted for the agricultural
extension service (Russell, 1983 ~ .
-
OCR for page 56
S6
.,
Organization of Research Project and Team
The problems to be addressed through interdisciplin-
ary research should be carefully defined and bounded
through participation of the scientists from the relevant
disciplines and practitioners from the institutions in
which the research in to be applied A common conceptual
framework needs to guide all the research activities.
Specific steps in planning projects should b@ completed
through such joint efforts of the participants as design"
ing special research tools or planning the dissemination
of results.
The two predominant fores of organization of interdict
ciplinary trams are project organization and matrix organ-
ization. A matrix organization is common to mission-
oriented research (Low, 1983), but it can produce stress
on particip Its became e of role ~ iguity, and the team
may have poor integration as a result (Stuck)' 1986)0
One means of improving coa~unications is close proximity
of project participants. Explicit mechanisms for team
communication and interactions are also important.
Any organization of a research teak should provide a
decision°making structure that ensures interdisciplinary
input and development of common objectives for the pro]-
ect. Understanding of other perspectives and the infer °
relationship of the disciplines involved is important not
only for the leader but for all participants in the proJ-
ect.
-
Representative terms from entire chapter:
educational researchers
