Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesIntroduction
Throughout the academic and research community, interdisciplinary research has become a catch phrase (Giacomini, 2004; Robertson, Martin, & Singer, 2003). With the recent emphasis in the NIH Roadmap initiative (http://www.ncrr.nih.gov/roadmapnewsecir.asp) on interdisciplinary and translational sciences, interdisciplinarity has become the model of scholarly inquiry generally espoused by many who seek and receive federal research funding. Despite this, there are major gaps in our general understanding of interdisciplinary research and how it can be successfully integrated and sustained in academic health science centers and universities (Mallon & Bunton, 2005).
Entities designated as interdisciplinary research centers abound in large universities and academic health centers, but in many settings the mantra of interdisciplinary research may be no more than lip service. Such centers have been described as follows (Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2004):
Considerable ongoing resources and efforts are being expended in these research centers. Although they are highly variable in their goals, administrative structure, funding, and defined outcomes, it is likely that there are also many commonalities and potential interfaces or even overlaps among them. Unfortunately, however, those characteristics that are predictive of success of such centers have not been clearly articulated or codified. Research centers are different from other academic units, and are relatively independent of the existing structure of a university. This means that they can undertake innovative research agendas free of the regulations of accrediting organizations, the routine activities inherent in administering educational programs, and the obligations of participation in university administrative activities. They are--or are intended to be --interdisciplinary, so that they can support research teams that cross disciplinary and departmental lines and their members can conduct research that falls outside the established bounds of a disciplinary department. Finally, centers are problem-responsive. They arise to confront specific issues and concerns, drawing together faculty whose work addresses these problems.
Interdisciplinarity, independence, and responsiveness are the principle strengths and rationales for the existence of research centers. At the same time, these features present centers, and the universities that house them, with several distinct challenges. In this paper, we report on the results of a conference of directors of diverse research centers at a single research university that focused on the challenges facing centers and their universities and the factors predicting their success.
The Conference
In 2004, the National Institutes of Health allocated funds for exploratory centers in interdisciplinary research (http://www.ncrr.nih. gov/roadmapnewsecir.asp). One of the 21 centers funded was the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (CIRAR, http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/nursing/ CIRAR/). CIRAR's core research collaborative team includes persons from the disciplines of epidemiology, microbiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, nursing, economics, health policy, education, statistics, economics, informatics, and public health. The goals of this Center were not only to develop a research agenda that would have an impact on the global problem of antimicrobial resistance, but also to establish a vital, sustainable interdisciplinary research process. Despite the recognized need for interdisciplinary collaboration in biomedical research, there are structural and cultural disincentives within the academic setting that must be overcome. Hence, we developed a series of strategic initiatives to systematically examine the structure, processes, and outcomes necessary for an interdisciplinary research center to thrive.
One of our first orders of business was to review bodies of literature from business, education and health care to adapt and develop our own definition of interdisciplinarity which could then be used to identify the competencies needed for successful interdisciplinary research practice. From this literature review an initial definition was developed and small modifications were made after field testing. We defined interdisciplinary research as any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. The research is based upon a conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those disciplines, uses study design and methodology that is not limited to any one field, and requires the use of perspectives and skills of the involved disciplines throughout multiple phases of the research process. The process we used to address the definitional aspects of interdisciplinary research has been described elsewhere (Aboelela et al., 2007).
Our second strategic initiative was to convene a group of directors of interdisciplinary research centers in a half-day symposium to accomplish five aims: (a) identify characteristics essential to successful interdisciplinary research centers; (b) assess challenges in the operation of a research center and strategies to deal with these challenges; (c) discuss mechanisms for sustainability of centers (e.g. funding); (d) increase networking and communication among interdisciplinary research centers; and (e) exchange successful strategies for enhancing minority and gender balance in interdisciplinary research centers, as well as the balance of junior and senior researchers. Because no list of such centers existed at the University, we searched websites and polled departments and schools to identify relevant centers, using the following criteria: the center had to be interdisciplinary with a major research mission and have current external funding from the government, foundations, and/or professional organizations. We identified 65 centers across Columbia University that met these criteria and contacted directors either directly by telephone or email.
While there was some initial skepticism among directors and academic administrators about whether such a meeting would yield a useful outcome, the majority of center directors were enthused and supportive, noting that there was little opportunity for such interface. The forum was convened in November 2005 with 59 attendees from 29 different centers. Also in attendance was a project officer from NIH, the vice president of the university, and several deans. Eight center directors and two moderators, who also serve as center directors, formed two panels to lead discussions responsive to each of the aims of the forum, and there was considerable input from the entire audience. Three professional staff members took extensive notes, panels were audiotaped, and consistent themes were summarized at the end of the day by a skilled facilitator. Summarized below are the thematic challenges identified by participants, discussion regarding the interface of the centers and the university, and a summary of issues and recommendations that emerged from this conference.
The Challenges Identified
The following represents a qualitative summary of the discussion that ensued. Our review of the conference proceedings suggests that the challenges to success facing research centers fall into 3 categories (Table 1): fiscal sustainability, recruiting and retaining faculty, and leadership sustainability.
Fiscal Sustainability
Many, but not all centers at the university began with a substantial research grant. A small number began with funding from school or university administration or from an outside gift. This initial funding allowed the centers to become established and to embark on their programs of research, and also financed or enabled a request for space and other resources, such as administrative support.
Over time, center financing evolved. Successful centers generally obtained additional outside grant support to continue or enlarge their research programs. These new grants, however, often raised challenges for the centers, especially when they were written by faculty from disciplinary departments who had joined the center. The new grants brought indirect cost recovery (ICR) funds, the distribution of which among the university, schools, departments, and the center itself had not always been clearly contemplated at the establishment of the center. Centers often required new resources--space, faculty, or administrative support--and center directors complained that obtaining these resources sometimes necessitated extensive negotiation.
Policies with respect to the distribution of ICR funds varied considerably across the University. Center directors noted that the ability to maintain control of some ICR funds facilitated the task of maintaining the center over time. Centers with well-established protocols for sharing ICR with disciplinary departments also found that this practice brought them needed support from the departments. Centers without access to ICR funds, especially those without an outside endowment, had to develop strategies that would allow them to make longer term commitments to participating faculty.
In some cases, centers experienced an interval between grants when funding was insufficient to maintain core resources. Generally, centers did not have guaranteed sources of bridge funds for these circumstances. Those larger centers that both held many grants simultaneously and obtained a share of ICR funds sometimes had some wiggle room, but centers with fewer grants found it difficult to set aside a share of funds (from whatever source) and had to negotiate bridge funding. Center directors agreed that reliance on direct federal grant funding alone was problematic. They noted that having a diversified portfolio of financial supporters (including a combination of government, industry, foundations, endowment, and university funds directly or through ICR) helped provide stability.
FEED