Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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
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
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
- ~ 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.
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
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
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? -
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.
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 . .
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
45 in the action.... We didn't involve people in disciplines other than chemistry in developing the CBA materials. We did give some thought to pro- gra~ed instruction, but we didn't have any learning psychologists discuss this with us. I think we could have benefited frog' advice by psychologists. Today, of course, there is the added frontier of the use of computers in instruction and in interfacing in the laboratory. Gerald Holton: The Project Physics Course products may have been one of the chief models of "collaborative work," involving from the beginning scientists, educators on school and college levels, educational researchers, editors , historians of science, philosophers of science, graphic artists ~ filmmakers, laboratory equipment designers, reading specialists, etc. lathe list of significant contributors has 177 names. . . The three codirectors [consisted of] a physicist and physics historian, a professor in the graduate school of education, and a former high school classroom teacher. I would urge similar arrangements for new curriculum development projects today. John Truxal: In the projects with which I am familiar, there was remarkably strong in~rol~rement of teachers and educators. I personally believe strongly this involvement is essential--just as biomedical engi - neering has failed miserably when no physicians are involved. New developments must gain acceptance in a remarkably homeossatic field, so must be very care- fully matched to the detailed characteristics of the profession. On the other hand, there was very little collaboration with educational researchers. . . . Whether such collaboration is important today is a difficult question. Cognitive science and "knowledge engineering" fascinate me, but it is not clear to me that there are yet important inputs for curriculum developers . John Mayor: ~ rate the collaborative work with teachers, and its extent, to have been excellent. This same rating
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
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 - -
_ _ ~ 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,
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
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
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 -
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 .
: 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.
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,
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 ~ . -
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. -
