Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons English Theses & Dissertations English Spring 2016 Collaborative Development of an Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Proposal: Negotiation through Boundary Objects Laura Emond Paganucci Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds Part of the Communication Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Recommended Citation Paganucci, Laura E.. "Collaborative Development of an Interdisciplinary Scientific Research Proposal: Negotiation through Boundary Objects" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, English, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/vtkp-ym37 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds/16 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the English at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL: NEGOTIATION THROUGH BOUNDARY OBJECTS by Laura Emond Paganucci B.A. May 2002, Bowdoin College M.S. June 2006, Dartmouth College A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ENGLISH OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2016 Approved by: Louise Wetherbee Phelps (Director) Holly Gaff (Member) Daniel Richards (Member) Julia Romberger (Member) ABSTRACT COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL: NEGOTIATION THROUGH BOUNDARY OBJECTS Laura Emond Paganucci Old Dominion University, 2016 Director: Dr. Louise Wetherbee Phelps Funding agencies are increasingly soliciting proposals that require interdisciplinary and collaborative solutions for a scientific issue. The development of these research proposals is challenging and often problematic due to the complexity involved in integrating the differing characteristics of multiple disciplines to produce a single, cohesive document. Minimal research has been conducted to examine this collaborative process as it occurs. This study uses the concept of boundary objects as a framework to analyze an interdisciplinary and collaborative team during the development of a research proposal. Multiple methods were used to identify disciplinary differences and analyze their negotiations. This study delineated disciplinary differences and highlighted the need for increased disciplinary awareness to improve the collaborative process. The findings also suggested that funding agencies need to modify solicitation and review processes to accommodate interdisciplinary proposals. iii Copyright ©, 2016, by Laura Emond Paganucci, All Rights Reserved. iv This dissertation is dedicated to two very important men in my life. First, my husband, who was an unwavering source of support and through the writing of this dissertation, did not let my children starve. Next, my father, who started me on this journey and always knew I could pull it off. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee. My chair, Louise Wetherbee Phelps, offered phenomenal support and insight. Bridging the gap between English and the sciences proved challenging in more ways than one. Louise, thank you for your patience and perfect guidance as I situated myself in a new discipline. This truly was an interdisciplinary effort in every way. Holly Gaff also deserves a special thank you. I could not have accessed and learned from this amazing team of scientists without you. You are a true friend and inspiration. Julia Romberger and Daniel Richards, thank you for the resources, suggestions, and insight that you offered through the development of this dissertation. I would also like to thank a fellow graduate student, Susanne Nobles, for her constant support, editing and friendship. I look forward to seeing where we will go from here. I must also thank my family. Craig, you supported my desire to obtain yet another degree even though we faced numerous deployments, seven moves and the birth of two children during my tenure in this program. I am infinitely grateful to you for never letting me give up. Caitlin and Gabe, you have been so patient with me. I can now give you my undivided attention. To my parents, thank you for being a constant source of support no matter where my professional life may lead. I could not have made it this far without you all. Thank you. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH AIMS ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 CHAPTER OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 11 2.1 SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES .................................................................................. 11 2.2 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY ....................... 16 2.3 CONCEPT OF BOUNDARY OBJECTS ............................................................... 23 2.4 RESEARCH PROPOSAL GENRE AND SUBGENRE ........................................ 26 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 30 3.1 PARTICIPANT SELECTION ................................................................................ 32 3.2 DERIVATION OF THE ANALYTICAL FOUNDATION ................................... 34 3.3 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .................................................................................... 35 3.4 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 38 3.5 MEETING OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................... 39 3.6 EMAIL AND TRACK-CHANGES PROTOCOL ................................................. 39 3.7 ANALYSES OF TEXTS ........................................................................................ 41 4. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT ........................................................................................................ 43 4.1 STUDY QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................. 43 4.2 BOUNDARY OBJECT IDENTIFICATION ......................................................... 44 4.3 EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: STATUS ............... 49 4.4 EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: SOCIAL WORLDS ................................................................................................................ 50 4.5 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 75 5. EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: SATISFYING INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................... 79 5.1 SATISFYING INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 79 5.2 CONTEXT OF THE EEID PROPOSAL ................................................................ 91 5.3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 97 vii 6. EEID PROPOSAL BOUNDARY OBJECT DESCRIPTION: NEGOTIATIONS TO PRODUCE ACTION ...................................................................... 99 6.1 IDENTIFICATION OF NEGOTIATION FACTORS ........................................... 99 6.2 NEGOTIATIONS OF DISCIPLINARY IDENTITY TO BUILD RHETORICAL STRATEGIES ............................................................................ 106 6.3 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 133 7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 135 7.1 REALIZING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ....................................................................................................... 135 7.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS AND OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................... 138 7.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AGENCY SOLICITATION AND REVIEW PROCESSES ........................................................................................ 145 7.4 INTEGRATING DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES AND COMPLICATING THE PROPOSAL GENRE .................................................... 152 7.5 INFORMING RESEARCH ON METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN ..................... 156 7.6 AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................................. 161 7.7 FINAL THOUGHTS ............................................................................................ 162 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................