Publication:
Successful Interdisciplinary Collaborations: The Contributions of Shared Socio-Emotional-Cognitive Platforms to Interdisciplinary Synthesis

Thumbnail Image

Date

2013-04-03

Published Version

Published Version

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you.

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Citation

Mansilla, Veronica Boix, Michèle Lamont, and Kyoko Sato. 2012. The contributions of shared socio-emotional-cognitive platforms to interdisciplinary synthesis. Paper presented at 4S Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, February 16-20, 2012.

Research Data

Abstract

Available theories concerning interdisciplinary collaborations tend to focus on either the cognitive or the social dimension of such interchange. We propose the theoretical construct of "shared socio-emotional-cognitive (SSEC) platforms" to capture what defines successful interdisciplinarity. The paper elaborates on this theoretical concept, which is informed by an extensive empirical study of nine research networks supported by three institutions: the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Santa Fe Institute. We also analyze the conditions that enable or impede individuals to conduct interdisciplinary research together successfully, focusing on intellectual, interactional and institutional conditions. We first review relevant literature on interdisciplinary collaborations, and then advance a definition of SSEC platforms, describing three key dimensions and the theoretical assumptions on which they stand. These dimensions are: the cognitive-intellectual (most exclusively concerned with substance); the emotional (concerned with reactions to individuals and ideas); and the socio-interactional (concerned primarily with interaction, meaning-making, and group styles). These dimensions are also described as conditions enabling successful interdisciplinarity. They operate together with institutional conditions for success, which concern the rules, practices and expectations of funding organizations and the academic fields. After showing that these dimensions and conditions are present in the nine groups studied, but in varying proportions, we conclude by comparing our construct with the notion of "trading zones" (Galison 1997) to specify our constructs‘ usefulness and contribution to the field.

Description

Other Available Sources

Keywords

Terms of Use

This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material (LAA), as set forth at Terms of Service

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

Related Stories