The aim of this study was to examine the potential benefits of multidisciplinarity among agri-food researchers working in small groups to generate ideas to stimulate innovation in the context of a laboratory project.
Background
Research on the role of multidisciplinarity in scientific research teams remains limited, particularly regarding the generation of ideas to innovate in a real laboratory project, and on a task with a real challenge for innovation.
Method
Researchers and agri-food research staff were assigned to small groups of either multidisciplinary or unidisciplinary composition to produce ideas on a cross-cutting theme for an innovative laboratory project using an electronic “brainwriting” application.
Results
A greater depth in idea generation (number of ideas per category) was observed in the multidisciplinary condition than in the unidisciplinary condition.
Conclusion
The main benefits of this study were to experimentally examine the effects of multidisciplinarity in small scientific research groups on the production of ideas in a field study conducted on the premises of an agri-food laboratory.
Application
This study provides advice on how to promote innovative projects by stimulating ideation processes, which includes constructing small multidisciplinary groups and using an electronic “brainwriting” technique.
AlvargonzálezD. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25, 387–403.doi:10.1080/02698595.2011.623366
2.
BaruahJ.PaulusP. B. (2011). Category assignment and relatedness in the group ideation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1070–1077.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.007
3.
BerkmanE. T.WilsonS. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social) psychological theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 864–874.doi:10.1177/174569162096965033412079
BundersonJ. S.SutcliffeK. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893.doi:10.5465/3069319
6.
CamachoL. M.PaulusP. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071
7.
CourseyL. E.WilliamsB. C.KenworthyJ. B.PaulusP. B.DoboliS. (2020). Divergent and convergent group creativity in an asynchronous online environment. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54, 253–266.doi:10.1002/jocb.363
8.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773.doi:10.5465/amr.2007.25275511
9.
CsikszentmihalyiM.SawyerK. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. InSternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.329–363). MIT Press.
10.
DarbellayF.MoodyZ.SedookaA.SteffenG. (2014). Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 1–10.doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.873653
11.
de VreedeG.-J.BriggsR. O.Reiter-PalmonR. (2010). Exploring asynchronous brainstorming in large groups: A field comparison of serial and parallel subgroups. Human Factors, 52, 189–202.doi:10.1177/001872080935474820942250
12.
DerryS. J.GernsbacherM. A.SchunnC. D. (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
14.
DienesZ. (2014). Using bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 781.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0078125120503
15.
DinoR. N. (2015). Crossing boundaries: Toward integrating creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship research through practice. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 139–146.doi:10.1037/aca0000015
16.
DornburgC. C.StevensS. M.HendricksonS. M. L.DavidsonG. S. (2009). Improving extreme-scale problem solving: Assessing electronic brainstorming effectiveness in an industrial setting. Human Factors, 57, 1076–1094.
17.
DunbarK. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. InSternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp.365–395). MIT Press.
18.
DunbarK. (1997). How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science. InWardT. B.SmithS. M.VaidJ. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp.461–493). American Psychological Association.
19.
DunnetteM. D.CampbellJ.JaastadK. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 30–37.doi:10.1037/h0049218
20.
EdmondsonA. C.HarveyJ.-F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 347–360.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002
21.
EdmondsonA. C.NembhardI. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 123–138.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.x
FioreS. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39, 251–277.doi:10.1177/1046496408317797
24.
HallJ. A.Schmid MastM. (2008). Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goals and content domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 144–155.doi:10.1177/014616720730919218162662
25.
HeinzeT.ShapiraP.RogersJ. D.SenkerJ. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.014
26.
HülshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.doi:10.1037/a001597819702361
27.
IsaksenS. G.PuccioG. J.TreffingerD. J. (1993). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 149–170.doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb00704.x
28.
JeansonS.MichinovE. (2020). What is the key to researchers’ job satisfaction? One response is professional identification mediated by work engagement. Current Psychology, 39, 518–527.doi:10.1007/s12144-017-9778-2
29.
KordeR.PaulusP. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
30.
KuoH.-C.TsengY.-C.YangY.-T. C. (2019). Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 1–10.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001
31.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.doi:10.2307/2529310843571
32.
Le HénaffB.MichinovN.Le BohecO. (2018). Applying the side model to brainwriting: The impact of intergroup comparison and anonymity on creative performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 351–359.doi:10.1111/jasp.12515
33.
LeaheyE.BeckmanC. M.StankoT. L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 105–139.doi:10.1177/0001839216665364
34.
LeeY.-N.WalshJ. P.WangJ. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44, 684–697.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.007
35.
MannixE.NealeM. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x26158478
36.
McLeodP. L.LobelS. A.CoxT. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248–264.doi:10.1177/1046496496272003
37.
MelloA. L.RentschJ. R. (2015). Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 46, 623–658.doi:10.1177/1046496415602558
38.
MichinovN. (2012a). The use of electronic brainstorming for collecting ideas in scientific research teams: A challenge for future online research. InNunesS. C. (Ed.), Online research methods in urban and planning studies: Design and outcomes (pp.157–172). IGI Global.
39.
MichinovN. (2012b). Is electronic brainstorming or brainwriting the best way to improve creative performance in groups? An overlooked comparison of two idea-generation techniques. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, E222–E243.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01024.x
40.
MichinovN.JametE.MétayerN.Le HénaffB. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 57–67.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.037
41.
MichinovN.PrimoisC. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.004
42.
MiuraA.HidaM. (2004). Synergy between diversity and similarity in group-idea generation. Small Group Research, 35, 540–564.doi:10.1177/1046496404264942
43.
MoiranoR.SánchezM. A.ŠtěpánekL. (2020). Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100626.doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100626
44.
MoranJ. (2002). Interdisciplinarity. Routledge.
45.
National Research Council. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press.
46.
National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond (p.18722). National Academies Press.
47.
NewellW. H. (2007). Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. InGöktugM. (Ed.), Handbook of decision making (pp.245–264). CRC/Taylor & Francis.
48.
NijstadB. A.De DreuC. K. W.RietzschelE. F.BaasM. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 34–77.doi:10.1080/10463281003765323
49.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_116859437
50.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW.LodewijkxH. F. M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 535–544.doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00500-0
51.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW.LodewijkxH. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 531–548.doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4
52.
OsbornA. F. (1957). Applied imagination. Scribner.
53.
PaulusP. B.KordeR. M.DicksonJ. J.CarmeliA.Cohen-MeitarR. (2015). Asynchronous brainstorming in an industrial setting: Exploratory studies. Human Factors, 57, 1076–1094.doi:10.1177/001872081557037425850113
54.
PaulusP. B.LareyT. S.PutmanV. L.LeggettK. L.RolandE. J. (1996). Social influence processing in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3–14.doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1801_2
55.
PaulusP. B.van der ZeeK.KenworthyJ. (2016). Cultural diversity and team creativity. InGlăveanuV. P. (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp.57–76). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
56.
PeterLMichinovNBesançonMMichinovEJuhelJBrownGJametECherbonnierAProFAN Consortium. (2021). Revisiting the effects of gender diversity in small groups on divergent thinking: A large-scale study using synchronous electronic brainstorming. Manuscript submitted for publication, .
57.
PaulusP. B.van der ZeeK. (2015). Creative processes in culturally diverse teams. InOttenS.van der ZeeK. I.BrewerM. (Eds.), Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work (pp.108–131). Psychology Press.
58.
Reiter-PalmonR.WigertB.VreedeT. (2012). Team creativity and innovation. InMumfordM. D. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp.295–326). Elsevier.
59.
RhotenD.O’ConnorE.HackettE. J. (2009). The act of collaborative creation and the art of integrative creativity: Originality, disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Thesis Eleven, 96, 83–108.doi:10.1177/0725513608099121
60.
RosenfieldP. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35, 1343–1357.doi:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90038-r1462174
61.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.22519293088
62.
SalazarM. R.FeitosaJ.SalasE. (2017). Diversity and team creativity: Exploring underlying mechanisms. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21, 187–206.doi:10.1037/gdn0000073
63.
SalazarM. R.LantT. K.FioreS. M.SalasE. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43, 527–558.doi:10.1177/1046496412453622
64.
SchulzK.-P.GeithnerS.WoelfelC.KrzywinskiJ. (2015). Toolkit-based modelling and serious play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 323–340.doi:10.1111/caim.12113
65.
SimontonD. K. (1995). Foresight in insight: A Darwinian answer. InSternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), The nature of insight. MIT Press.
66.
StokolsD.HallK. L.TaylorB. K.MoserR. P. (2008). The science of team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S77–S89.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
67.
StormeM.MyszkowskiN.ÇelikP.LubartT. (2014). Learning to judge creativity: The underlying mechanisms in creativity training for non-expert judges. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 19–25.doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.002
68.
SuttonR.HargadonA. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685.doi:10.2307/2393872
69.
ThayerA. L.PetruzzelliA.McClurgC. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations. American Psychologist, 73, 363–375.doi:10.1037/amp000031029792454
70.
ValacichJ. S.JungJ. H.LooneyC. A. (2006). The effects of individual cognitive ability and idea stimulation on idea-generation performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 1–15.doi:10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.1
71.
van der LugtR. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26, 101–122.doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003
72.
van KnippenbergD. (2017). Team innovation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 211–233.doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113240
73.
VestalA.Mesmer-MagnusJ. (2020). Interdisciplinarity and team innovation: The role of team experiential and relational resources. Small Group Research, 51, 738–775.doi:10.1177/1046496420928405
74.
WeingartL. R.CroninM. A.HouserC. J. S.CaganJ.VogelC. M. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gap and task characteristics. InNeiderL. L.SchriesheimC. A. (Eds.), Understanding teams (pp.89–110). IAP.
75.
WeingartL. R.TodorovaG.CroninM. A. (2008). Representational gaps, team integration and team creativity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2008, 1–6.doi:10.5465/ambpp.2008.33662047
76.
YongK.SauerS. J.MannixE. A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45, 266–289.doi:10.1177/1046496414530789
