With the advent of strategic science, multidisciplinary and cross-institutional research is more and more becoming the rule. The problems encountered by such multidisciplinary research and development cooperations are highly varied. They derive from multiple differences in the backgrounds of the participants and are often perceived as cultural gaps that need to be bridged for cooperation. The main argument of the article is that multidisciplinary collaborations have mechanisms at their disposal to cooperate despite multiple problems counteracting such a cooperation. Since symbolic communication is the primary medium of articulation across sites, this article focuses on how symbolic communication enables cooperation across sites without a deep comprehension of each other's work. Multidisciplinary cooperations start out with few shared symbolic resources, but as the cooperation continues, they may develop communicative boundarytranscending objects such as active and passive dictionaries and hybrid repertoires.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advanced learner's dictionary of current English. 1989. 4th ed.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Alagoa, E. J.1975. The interdisciplinary approach to African history in Nigeria. Presence Africaine94:173-174, 182-183.
3.
Bärmark, Jan, and Göran Wallen. 1980. The development of an interdisciplinary project. In The social process of scientific investigation: Sociology of science yearbook 1980, edited by K. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitley, 221-235. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
4.
Bauer, Henry H.1990. Barriers against interdisciplinarity: Implication for studies of science, technology and society (STS). Science, Technology, & Human Values15 (1): 105-119.
5.
Blume, Stuart1990. Interdisciplinarity in the social sciences. SPG Concept Paper No. 10, University of Amsterdam.
6.
Clark, Kim B.1985. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy14:235-251.
7.
Clarke, Adele E.1991. Social worlds/arena theory as organizational theory. In Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss, edited by D. R. Maines, 119-158. New York: Aldine.
8.
Disco, Cornelius, Arie Rip, and Barend van der Meulen. 1992. Technical innovation and the universities: Division of labor in cosmopolitan technical regimes. Social Science Information31 (3): 465-507.
9.
Donnellon, Anne, Barbara Gray, and Michel G. Bougon. 1986. Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly31:43-55.
10.
Duncker, Elke, and Nil Disco. 1998. Meaningful boundaries: Symbolic representations in heterogeneous research and development projects. In Getting new technologies together, studies in making socio technical order, edited by N. Disco and B. van der Meulen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
11.
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Gersick, Connie, J. G. Hackman, and J. Richard. 1990. Habitual routines in task performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes47:65-97.
13.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.
14.
Giddens, Anthony. 1988. Die Theorie der Strukturierung [Interview with Anthony Giddens conducted by Bernd Kiesling]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 17:9-23.
15.
Hershberg, Theodore. 1981. Prologue. In Philadelphia, work, space, family, and group experience in the nineteenth century: Essays towards an interdisciplinary history of the city, edited by Theodore Hershberg, vi-viii. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Hicks, Diana. 1992. Instrumentation, interdisciplinary knowledge, and research performance in spin glass and superfluid helium three. Science, Technology, & Human Values17 (2): 180-204.
17.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientist engineers through society?Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18.
McDonald, Terence J.1984. Comment. Journal of Urban History8 (4): 454-454.
19.
Mead, George Herbert. 1962. Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviourist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Noordman, Oscar. 1996. Second harmonic generation using organic materials. Ph.D. diss., Enschede.
21.
Platt, J. T., and H. K. Platt. 1975. The social significance of speech: An introduction to and workbook in sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22.
Porter, Alan L., and Frederick A. Rossini. 1984. Interdisciplinary research redefined: Multi skill, problem focused research in the STRAP framework. R&D Management14 (2): 105-111.
23.
Star, Susan Leigh. 1995. The politics of formal representations: Wizards, gurus, and organizational complexity. In Ecologies of knowledge, edited by S. L. Star, 88-118. New York: State University of New York Press.
24.
Star, Susan Leigh, and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science19:387-420.
25.
Strauss, Anselm L.1978. A social world perspective. In Studies in symbolic interaction, vol. 1., edited by N. K. Denzin, 28. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
26.
Thompson Klein, Julie. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
27.
van Lente, Harro, and Arie Rip. 1998. Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In Getting new technologies together, studies in making socio technical order, edited by N. Disco and B. van der Meulen, 224. Berlin: de Gruyter.
28.
Wilpert, B.1979. Managing interdisciplinarity with internationality. In Interdisciplinary research groups, edited by R. T. Barth and R. Steck, 168-179. Vancouver: Interdisciplinary Research Groups on Interdisciplinary Programs.
