Off the Mark

In a bit under 2 weeks, we’ll be discussing Boundary work and Collaboration in LIS590TR ITCS. I am the discussion leader for these topics and readings. Besides the instructor assigned readings (below), I get to pick one to be read. Excerpt from syllabus here:

A. Discussion facilitation. Each student will be responsible for in-depth reading and analysis in one of the topic areas covered during weeks 6-13. As a discussion leader you will need to identify key themes from the syllabus material and facilitate the discussion for the assigned class session. While you should give some attention to all of the designated readings for the week, you may concentrate on the items that you find most central or pertinent to your interests. Please let the class know in advance if you plan to emphasize particular readings.B. Selection and analysis of additional reading. For your discussion week you will also be required to select one supplementary reading for the class that relates to the topic area for the week. The article or chapter can be from the LIS literature or another field of study. Make a copy available to class members at least 3 days before the scheduled class session. In class you will provide an introduction to the paper and facilitate a discussion of the paper’s contribution to LIS and science studies. Turn in a short 2-3 page paper discussing the rationale for your selection and a brief critique of the paper.

Everyone else has brought a copy for the others the week before. Being one of the last, I’d like to reciprocate; thus, have to have it picked out and multiply photocopied by noon on Thursday.

To that end, I am reading the assigned articles (see immediately below) so I can find another good angle or something that bears repeating.

• Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242-253.
• Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703-722.
• Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
• Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Learning and knowledge networks in interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1079-1092.
• ??? Picked by me.

I read the Palmer last night and this morning. The “study explores the information processes and work situations of interdisciplinary scientists” (242). It “examines the process of boundary-crossing inquiry, identifying how researchers use information, develop knowledge, and work within various structures to conduct interdisciplinary research” (243).

About halfway in it got very interesting for me. The Discussion section just slowly built through “Research Structures” into “Research Modes,” where things really started warming up. In “Information Practices” things got very intriguing; I discovered that I am a “prober” and maybe even a “generalist.” Seeing as the “groupings … are not mutually exclusive,” at least some of these categories are really making sense as I can see myself in them (247). “Knowledge strategies” made me conclude that Carole had, at the very least, described me perfectly.

At the bottom of p. 249 (Info Practices) I had sketched out a small t-shirt design that read: habitual prober / citation. On the next page (Knowledge stategies), after verifying my generalist tendencies and deciding Carole had described my educational soul, I sketched: habitually probing generalist / citation.

The above picture is an early try at what I want. I just don’t do graphics very often.

There are four key research modes: Team Leader, Collaborator, Generalist, and Problem-oriented. Against these research modes are plotted Approach, Info Practices, Knowledge Strategies, Scope and Outcome. Approach consists of: managerial, cooperative, individualistic, and multi-modal. Info Practices are gathering, finding and probing. Knowledge strategies are: recruiting, consulting and learning. Scope is breadth or depth, or some mix. Outcome is productive, integrative, or both.

For all the combinations (and other reasons), read the article. The Generalist (generally) uses an individualistic Approach, probing Info Practices, learning Knowledge Strategies, breadth of Scope, and integrative Outcomes (from Fig. 3, 248).

Generalists tend to work alone, building their personal base of knowledge to address broad research problems (248).Probing is exploratory in nature–searching for the unknown, often in unfamiliar domains (248).

Building one’s own personal knowledge base is achieved by learning (248).

Breadth refers to the practice of asking broad questions and endeavoring to master more than one domain (248).

Integrative modes publish fewer papers, but they take a broad perspective and strive for synthesis across domains (248).

I am glad that these aren’t strict categories, as I do have some of the Collaborator and Problem-oriented, and even Team Leader, in me when needed. And, of course, I gather, find, recruit, consult, go for depth, etc.

Information probing, however, takes place on a grander scale, and is an intentional effort to change ideas and directions by searching or browsing in new domains. As pertinent information is assimilated, the realm of relevant subjects to search and keep current in is altered and, in most cases, expanded.Probing was emphasized by the problem-oriented researchers and the generalists who found it good for gaining exposure to new information. Yet, the scientists who do a lot of information probing are faced with the task of sifting and evaluating all the ideas and “pet theories” they encounter. Moreover, with each new domain there are terms and concepts to learn and analytical approaches to understand (249).

[Damn, I knew I was setting myself up.]

The results of this study support Klein’s (1990) assertion that interdisciplinarians need to know “what information to ask for and how too acquire a working knowledge of the language, concepts, information, and analytical skills pertinent to a given problem, process, or phenomenon” (p. 183) Petrie (1986) suggests that researchers must acquire an interpretive level of tacit knowledge to do interdisciplinary work, designating two basic criteria: knowledge of another discipline’s observational categories and understanding the key terms in the other disciplines (250).

…scientists who practice in the generalist mode strive for comprehension beyond the understanding of terms and categories (250).

These descriptions are better than any horoscope, web quiz, or whatever, at getting at an important essence of what is to be, and experience “learning” as, me.

I showed my design to Carole today and she loved it. I told her it felt like she had laid bare my educational soul. She suggested we should be recruiting “habitually probing generalists” to LIS.

So I am going to try and get myself a shirt made. Maybe some others like, “interdisciplinarians united” and who knows what else? “Interdisciplinarians” is such a fun word to type. And I’ll bet it is an awesome or handsome word in the right font. Perhaps both with and excellent font. And a t-shirt with a footnote is, by default, a winner.

Klein, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University.

Petrie, H. G. (1986). “Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary enquiry.” In Interdisciplinary analyis and research: Theory and practice of problem-focused research and development (pp. 115-130). Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond. Reprinted from Educational Researcher, 5(2), 9-15.