Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to understand ecological systems at scales critical to human decision making. Current reward structures are problematic for scientists engaged in interdisciplinary research, particularly early career researchers, because academic culture tends to value only some research outputs, such as primary‐authored publications. Here, we present a framework for the costs and benefits of collaboration, with a focus on early career stages, and show how the implementation of novel measures of success can help defray the costs of collaboration. Success measures at team and individual levels include research outputs other than publications, including educational outcomes, dataset creation, outreach products (eg blogs or social media), and the application of scientific results to policy or management activities. Promotion and adoption of new measures of success will require concerted effort by both collaborators and their institutions. Expanded measures should better reflect and reward the important work of both disciplinary and interdisciplinary teams at all career stages, and help sustain and stimulate a collaborative culture within ecology.

The Lotic Intersite Nitrogen Experiments: an example of successful ecological research collaboration

“…The project operated with a dispersed rather than a hierarchical structure (Goring et al 2014), a successful model that has worked for other experimental ecological research groups (e.g., Borer et al 2014) with each member of each research group providing input to experimental design and analysis. A dispersed project structure has some similarities to a "community of practice" (sensu O'Sullivan and Azeem 2007), wherein the group is self-organized and geographically dispersed, but individuals communicate regularly.…”

“…Most of the research and suggestions from studies to date indicate that characteristics of successful collaborative teams include: 1) a diversity of researchers (Hong and Page 2004), 2) sensitivity to needs and enfranchisement of project participants at all levels (Goring et al 2014), 3) good listening skills among group members (Thompson 2009), 4) development of the group process over time (Scott andDavis 2007, Thompson 2009), and 5) a willingness for individuals to bear a fair share of the costs of the collaboration (Goring et al 2014). Our collaborative experiences in the LINX project are consistent with prior collaborative scientific research.…”

A Word to the Wise: Advice for Scientists Engaged in Collaborative Adaptive Management

“…The benefits and costs of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology are well-documented (Goring et al 2014). One cost is the need to build a shared understanding among scientists from different disciplines.…”

Cocitation or Capacity-Building? Defining Success within an Interdisciplinary, Sustainability Science Team

“…Taking a systems approach, these researchers assess how patterns of interaction can influence the success of these teams, identifying patterns of communication behavior and the quality of interpersonal relationships that affect how group goals are accomplished (Thompson, 2009;McGreavy et al, 2015). At the same time, however, several scholars studying these teams contend that current definitions of research success are narrowly defined to outputs that are easy to measure (i.e., publications, citation rates) (Sonnenwald, 2007;Stokols et al, 2008a,b;Cheruvelil et al, 2014;Goring et al, 2014;Bark et al, 2016), thus leaving process orientated measures-often assessing interpersonal relationships-out of the conversation (Wagner et al, 2011). In turn, calls for new definitions of research success have been made, with scholars pushing the boundaries of defining research success, including a regard for the collaborative process .…”