Based on an original ethnographic study of a translational cancer research institute in the United States, we propose calibration as a process that makes interdisciplinary collaboration without consensus possible. Calibration refers to ongoing, day-to-day negotiation and alignment of personal identities, disciplinary commitments, and research group customs that occur during face-to-face group deliberations around everyday research concerns. Calibration provides a mechanism that explains how collaboration without consensus is possible. Crucially, it does not presuppose that interdisciplinary collaboration either indicates or causes the blurring or softening of disciplinary boundaries. We argue that at the microsociological level it may be disciplinary robustness, rather than synthesis, that contributes to interdisciplinary innovation.
AnholtR.StephenC.CopesR.. 2012. “Strategies for Collaboration in the Interdisciplinary Field of Emerging Zoonotic Diseases.”Zoonoses and Public Health59 (4): 229–40.
2.
ArthurM.2009. “Thinking Outside the Master’s House: New Knowledge Movements and the Emergence of Academic Disciplines.”Social Movement Studies8 (1): 73–87.
BarryA.BornG.WeszkalnysG.. 2008. “Logics of Interdisciplinarity.”Economy and Society37 (1): 20–49.
5.
CampbellR.2003. “Preparing the Next Generation of Scientists: The Social Process of Managing Students.”Social Studies of Science33 (6): 897–927.
6.
ClarkeA.MontiniT.. 1993. “The Many Faces of RU-486: Tales of Situated Knowledges and Technological Contestations.”Science, Technology, & Human Values18 (1): 42–78.
7.
ClarkeA.StarS.. 2008. “The Social Worlds Framework: A Theory/Methods Package.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by HackettE.AmsterdamskaO.LynchM.WajcmanJ., 3rd ed., 113–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
CummingsJ.KieslerS.. 2005. “Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries.”Social Studies of Science35 (5): 703–22.
9.
DuysburghP.NaessensK.KoningsW.JacobsA.. 2012. “Collaboration in a Multidisciplinary, Distributed Research Organization: A Case Study.”Higher Education Policy25 (3): 267–88.
10.
EliasophN.LichtermanP.. 2003. “Culture in Interaction.”American Journal of Sociology108 (4): 735–94.
11.
FarrellM.SchmittM.HeinemannG.. 2001. “Informal Roles and the Stages of Interdisciplinary Team Development.”Journal of Interprofessional Care15 (3): 281–95.
12.
FrickelS.GrossN.. 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements.”American Sociological Review70 (2): 204–32.
13.
FrostL.ReichM.FujisakiT.. 2002. “A Partnership for Invermectin: Social Worlds and Boundary Objects.” In Public-Private Partnerships for Public Health, edited by ReichM., 87–113. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
FujimuraJoan. 1992. “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation’.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringA., 168–211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
GierynT.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
HackettE.2005. “Essential Tensions: Identity, Control, and Risk in Research.”Social Studies of Science35 (5): 787–826.
17.
HackettE.ParkerJ.ConzD.RhotenD.ParkerA.. 2008. “Ecology Trans-formed: The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and the Changing Patterns of Ecological Research.” In Scientific Collaboration on the Internet, edited by OlsonG.ZimmermanA.BosN., 277–96. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
HalpernM.2012. “Across the Great Divide: Boundaries and Boundary Objects in Art and Science.”Public Understanding of Science21 (8): 922–37.
19.
HarveyF.ChrismanN.. 1998. “Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology.”Environment and Planning A30: 1683–94.
20.
HellerC.MichelassiF.. 2012. “Forging Successful Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations: A Nationwide Survey of Departments of Surgery.”Surgery151 (4): 502–09.
21.
JacobsJ.FrickelS.. 2009. “Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment.”Annual Review of Sociology35: 43–65.
22.
Knorr CetinaK.1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
LatourB.1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
LewisJ.RossS.HoldenT.. 2012. “The How and Why of Academic Collaboration: Disciplinary Differences and Policy Implications.”Higher Education64 (5): 693–708.
25.
MonteiroM.KeatingE.. 2009. “Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in Interdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration.”Science Communication31 (1): 6–28.
26.
MüllerR.2012. “Collaborating in Life Science Research Groups: The Question of Authorship.”Higher Education Policy25 (3): 289–311.
27.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
28.
Owen-SmithJ.2001. “Managing Laboratory Work through Skepticism: Processes of Evaluation and Control.”American Sociological Review66 (3): 427–52.
29.
ParkerJ.CronaB.. 2012. “On Being Things to All People: Boundary Organizations and the Contemporary Research University.”Social Studies of Science42 (2): 262–89.
30.
ParkerJ.HackettE.. 2012. “Hot Spots and Hot Moments in Scientific Collaborations and Social Movements.”American Sociological Review77 (1): 21–44.
31.
PowellW.KoputK.Smith-DoerrL.. 1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.”Administrative Science Quarterly41 (1): 116–45.
RhotenD.PfirmanS.. 2007. “Women in Interdisciplinary Science: Exploring Preferences and Consequences.”Research Policy36 (1): 56–75.
34.
SalazarM.LantT.FioreS.SalasE.. 2012. “Facilitating Innovation in Diverse Science Teams through Integrative Capacity.”Small Group Research43 (5): 527–58.
35.
SchmidtJ.2007. “Knowledge Politics of Interdisciplinarity: Specifying the Type of Interdisciplinarity in the NSF’s NBIC Scenario.”Innovation20 (4): 313–28.
36.
SproullR.HallH.. 1987. Multidisciplinary Research and Education Programs in Universities: Making Them Work. Washington, DC: Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, National Academy Press.
37.
StarS.2010. “This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.”Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 601–17.
38.
StarS.GriesmerJ.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations,’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.”Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420.
39.
StokolsD.HallK.TaylorB.MoserR.. 2008. “The Science of Team Science: Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement.”American Journal of Preventive Medicine: 35 (2): S77–89.
