Due to the complexity of human health, emphasis is increasingly being placed on the need for and conduct of multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary health research. Yet many academic and research organizations—and the discipline-specific associations and journals—may not yet be prepared to adopt changes necessary to optimally support interdisciplinary work. This article presents an ongoing interdisciplinary research project's efforts to investigate mechanisms and pathways that lead to occupational health disparities among healthcare workers. It describes the promises and pitfalls encountered during the research, and outlines effective strategies that emerged as a result. Lessons learned include: conflict resolution regarding theoretical and methodological differences; establishing a sense of intellectual ownership of the research, as well as guidelines for multiple authorship; and development and utilization of protocols, communication systems, and tools. This experience suggests a need for the establishment of supportive structures and processes to promote successful interdisciplinary research.
References
1.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Health disparities: linking biological and behavioral mechanisms with social and physical environments. Request for application ES-00-0004; 1999 Nov 4. Also available from: URL: http://www.niams.nih.gov/rtac/funding/grants/rfa/es_00_004.pdf
RosenfieldPL. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med1992;35:1343–57.
6.
FuchsVR. The future of health economics. J Health Econ2000;19:141–57.
7.
WalkerR. The public's problem with public health research. Health Prom Intl1995;10:229–37.
8.
DeversK. How will we know “good” qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res1999;34(5 Part 2):1153–88.
9.
RaginC. The distinctiveness of case oriented research. Health Serv Res1999;34(5 Part 2):1137–51.
10.
PietersRBaumgartnerH. Who talks to whom? Intra- and interdisciplinary communication of economics journals. J Economic Literature2002;XL:483–509.
11.
HuettnerDAClarkW. Comparative research productivity measures for economics departments. J Economic Education1997;28:272.
12.
RandsellLB. A comprehensive analysis of the publication process in selected health-related journals. Am J Health Studies1998;14:143–52.
13.
LabandD. Contribution, attribution, and the allocation of intellectual property rights: economic versus agricultural economics. Labor Economics2002;9:125–31.
14.
BruhnJG. Interdisciplinary research: a philosophy, art form, artifact, or antidote?Integr Physiol Behav Sci2000;35:58–66.
15.
ErlenJASimonoffLASereikaSMSuttonLB. Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations. J Prof Nurs1997;13:262–70.
16.
EngersM. First-author conditions. J Political Economy1999;107:859–83.
17.
FriedmanRFreidmanR. American science, academic organization, and interdisciplinary research. In: Birnbaum-MorePHRossiniFABaldwinDR, editors. International research management: studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government and academia. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.
18.
IssermanAM. Mobilizing a university for important social science research. Am Behav Scientist2000;44:310.
19.
HollisA. Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labor Economics2001;8:503–30.
20.
LabandNTollisonRD. Intellectual collaboration. J Political Economy2000;108:632–62.
21.
American Public Health Association. What AJPH authors should know. Am J Public Health 2002. Also available from: URL: http://www.ajph.org/misc/ifora.shtml
22.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Updated 2001 Oct [cited 2002 Sep 15]. Available from: URL: http://www.icmje.org
23.
American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington: APA; 2001.
24.
Courtney R. Working with protocols. Am J Nurs1997;2(Suppl)16E-F.
25.
YinRK. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1994.
26.
YinRK. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res1999;34(5 Part 2):1209–24.
27.
BowmanAWymanJFPetersJ. The operations manual: a mechanism for improving the research process. Nurs Res2002;51:134–8.
28.
MellorMJSolomonR. The interdisciplinary mental geriatric/gerontological team in their academic setting: hot air or energizer?J Geront Social Work1992;18:203–15.
29.
FawcettSBFranciscoVTPaine-AndrewsASchulzJA. A model memorandum of collaboration: a proposal. Public Health Rep2000;15:174–9.
30.
GreenLDanielMNovickL. Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research. Public Health Rep2001;116(Suppl 1):20–31.
31.
IsraelBSchulzAJParkerEABeckerAB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health1998;19:173–202.
32.
IsraelBSchulzAParkerEABeckerAB. Community-based participatory research: engaging communities as partners in health research. Presented at The Community-Campus Partnership for Health: A Policy Agenda for Health in the 21st Century; 2000 Apr 29–May 2. Washington, DC. Information available from: URL: http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu/ccph/guide.html#Publications
33.
KreuterMSabolBJO'DonovanADonovanJKleinLGreenLW. Commentaries from grantmakers on Fawcett et al.'s proposed memorandum of collaboration. Public Health Rep2000;115:180–90.
