Article Science & Technology Studies XX(X) Interdisciplinary Projects as an Expert-Network: Analysing Team Work Across Biological and Physical Sciences Neil Stephens Social and Political Sciences, Brunel University London, United Kingdom/ [email protected] Phil Stephens School of Dentistry, Cardiff University, United Kingdom Abstract We report an analysis of how an interdisciplinary project bringing together biologists, physicists and engineers worked in practice. The authorship team are the Principle Investigator who led the project, and a social scientist who studied the project as it was conducted by interviewing participants and observing practice. We argue it is accurate and productive to think of the interdisciplinary team as an Expert-Network, which means it was a managed set of relationships between disciplinary groups punctuated by specific junctions at which interdisciplinary exchange of materials, knowledge, and in limited cases, practices, occurred. We stress the role of trust in knowledge exchange, and document how hard sharing knowledge – and especially tacit knowledge - between disciplines can be. Key is the flexible management of the network, as the membership and required skill set change. Our analysis is embedded within, and contributes to, the Sociology of Experience and Expertise (SEE) framework. We close by suggesting advice for others seeking to manage a similar interdisciplinary Expert-Network. Keywords: Interdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinary, Expert-Network, Biology, Physical sciences Interdisciplinary work is an increasingly visible fea- ing cell lineages, employing experts from a set of ture of science. This given, what it actually means physical and life sciences. This paper is, itself, inter- has long remained ambiguous or contested both disciplinary, being co-authored by the cell biolo- among those who engage in practices under its gist who was Principle Investigator on the grant, name, and scholars who analyse its use in practice and a sociologist who collected data and analysed (Dogan and Pahre, 1990; Jacobs, 2014; Klein, 2009; the progress of the project. As part of this socio- Callard and Fitzgerald, 2015; Madsen, 2018). In this logical work, a set of interviews and observations paper we discuss and analyse practical issues in were conducted with consortium members across delivering projects constructed as interdiscipli- the four-year lifespan of the project to understand nary, through a case-study analysis of a particular the opportunities, challenges and broader experi- consortium addressing issues of accurately track- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 1 International License Science & Technology Studies XX(X) ences of working together. This work is reported consortium could then mechanically manipulate here. the surrounding environment to direct stem cells into a tissue of choice in order to deliver custom Empirical context: The consortium designed tissues on demand. The cell biologists produced two types of This consortium was assembled following a fund- cells for the other consortium members to use ing call from the UK Engineering and Physical in developing their novel technologies: neurons Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) to stimulate and adipose (fat) cells. The cell tracking tech- new research into the area of Novel Technolo- niques being developed were the microbiology- gies for Stem Cell Science. The call was explicitly led approach of Chemical Exchange Saturation designed to support interdisciplinary work, men- Transfer (CEST) and the chemistry-led approach tioning both cross-disciplinary and multidiscipli- of non-natural amino acids. The planned visuali- nary approaches in the proposal information. The sation techniques were the physics-led Coherent consortium members themselves were drawn Anti-Stokes Raman Shift (CARS) and Magnetic together through an existing infrastructure within Resonance Imaging (MRI). The consortium also the lead institution that had also been developed included the engineer-led rheological work that to support interdisciplinary engagements. would measure the stress and strain readings of In conducting the project, the consortium’s cells in a machine called a rheometer. The eventual main aim was to develop a set of technologies to aim of all of these processes was to provide cell help cell biologists track cells and their differen- biologists with better tools for observing and tiation state inside the body without opening the controlling cells inside the body. body up. The underlying principle of the applica- The project was structured around three tion was the hypothesis that such research would work packages across which five ‘Post-Doctoral profit from an interdisciplinary approach, drawing Research Assistants’ (PDRAs; 3x biologists, 1x together areas of complementary expertise across physicist, 1x engineer) worked in collabora- the life and physical sciences. The team assembled tion. Work package 1 collated the work on non- was cross-School and cross-University, with most destructive stem cell imaging, including both the members in City 1 and those specialising in CARS and MRI/CEST research. Work package 2 rheology in City 2, a similar sized city 55km away. contained the rheological work on the microstruc- The project was concerned with developing tural studies of cell differentiation. Work package solutions to overcome a major barrier impeding 3 aimed to extend the rheological work to 3D the translation of stem cell science: the inability to tissues. Across the consortium project meetings accurately follow cell lineages (the pathways along were held every three months to discuss progress which stem cells move to become the end-stage and consider next steps according to a project cells of our bodies) and also to track them deep delivery schedule and defined milestones. inside tissues in a non-destructive way. Specifi- In what follows we analyse the work of this cally, the aim was to develop novel ways of non- consortium over a four-year period through destructively labelling stem cells by manipulating our novel concept the expert-network. First, we molecules within the cells so the consortium can review a subset of the existing literature on inter- follow both their position and their eventual fate. disciplinarity so we can subsequently show how In order to image the cells, the consortium aimed the expert-network concept contributes. to develop new microscopic techniques that allow researchers to view these cells in a non-invasive, Interdisciplinarity non-harmful way (unlike prior approaches) and therefore utilise technologies that will eventu- A large and diverse literature exists considering ally enable imaging of these cells deep within interdisciplinarity. This includes work from Science patient tissues. Being able to follow these stem and Technology Studies (Nowotny et al., 2001), cells would also allow the consortium to examine cognitive science (Bruun and Sierla, 2008), science the mechanical influence of surrounding tissue policy (NAS 2005), scientometrics (Tomov and environments. Armed with such knowledge the Mutafov, 1996), philosophy of science (Andersen 2 Stephens & Stephens and Wagenknecht, 2013), the history of science coordinator. Articulating a different typology, (Graff, 2016), as well as practitioner accounts (New- Andersen and Wagenknecht (2013) develop the ell et al., 2008). One strand of this work seeks to work of Rossini and Porter (1979) with four cate- develop a definition of what counts as interdisci- gories of interdisciplinary work. The first, integra- plinarity. Porter et al. (2004), for instance, argue tion by leader, has commonality with Bruun and interdisciplinary work involves research by teams Sierla’s modular knowledge networking, in that that integrate perspectives and concepts, and/ a group leader is key to drawing tasks together. or tools and techniques, and/or information and The second, common group learning, describes data from two or more sites of knowledge or a situation in which the research process is practice. Parts of the literature set interdiscipinar- characterised by sharing, interlocking inten- ity alongside similar categories of practice. In this sions and mutual responsiveness which ideally vein, Fiore (2008) reviews interdisciplinary policy leads to shared mental models and concepts. literature to identify three existing categories: The third, negotiation among experts, involves ‘cross-disciplinary’ (different disciplines without a shared intention, but less integration with no qualifying the type of interaction), ‘multidiscipli- commitment to genuinely shared final analysis. nary’ (coordination of efforts for a common goal), Andersen and Wagenknecht’s (2013) fourth and ‘interdisciplinary’ (systematic integration of ideas) final category is joint integration, which involves work. Similarly, Nersessian and Newstetter (2014) continuous integration of intentions and ways of discuss engineering examples of a multidiscipline, working towards joint results, in a form akin to interdiscipline, and transdiscipline (work that tran- Nersessian and Newstetter’s transdiscipline. scends discipline through synthesis). While these Bruun and Sierla (2008), and Andersen and authors seek generalizable definitions of inter- Wagenknecht (2013), define generic categories of disciplinarity, others suggest that what counts as interdisciplinarity. MacLeod and Nagatsu (2018), interdisciplinarity can vary depending upon the in contrast, report discipline specific modes of disciplinary