Given today’s complex societal challenges, academia should work better with government, industry and others in offering innovative solutions that benefit our society, economy and environment. Researchers across disciplines must work together and with decision-makers to understand how science can have better on-the-ground impacts toward longer-term, resilient societal outcomes. This includes, for example, by working with end-users in problem formation and throughout research projects to ensure decision-making needs are being met, and by linking physical science to additional fields like economics, risk communication or psychology. However, persistent barriers to collaborating across disciplines and with external decision-makers remain. Despite decades of studies highlighting the need for interdisciplinary research and science for decision-making, academic institutions are still not structured to facilitate or reward such collaboration. A group of researchers and educators used a mixed-methods approach to consider the knowledge base on interdisciplinary research and evidence-based policymaking, as well as their own experiences, and formed targeted and actionable recommendations that can help academia overcome these barriers. Their recommendations, specifically targeted to administrators, institutional leads, individual researchers, and research funders, align to three categories: define the role of academia in linking to policy; incorporate nontraditional standards in evaluating success; and build trust while drawing the line between knowledge dissemination and activism. By implementing the following recommendations, academics can foster the culture change that is needed to promote interdisciplinarity, strengthen the impact of their work and help society address urgent and multi-faceted problems.
Across the globe, societal and environmental challenges are ever growing in scale, complexity and urgency. Consider the worrisome problems we face—population growth, job displacement, climate change, extreme events, availability of quality freshwater, waste reduction and management, large human migrations, the faster spread of viruses. Countless decisions are needed to protect life and property, from strengthening resilience to implementing land-use regulations to securing water and food to identifying preventative health measures. Yet decision-support is complex, with interactions across living and non-living components—formal, natural and humanistic—that are ever changing and are often accompanied by a high degree of skepticism in trusting sources of information and/or unwillingness to act. Among other geographic areas, an apparent example is found in coastal zones, which are increasingly required to assess and reassess anticipated impacts from rising sea levels, as rates of relative sea level rise and ice melt are added to equations. However, though the science is improving, updating previous estimates can be controversial. Politics, economics, technology, and even psychology are at play (Amel et al., 2017) as decision-makers weigh the balance of development and adaptation. This tension was recently highlighted in the U.S. state of Georgia, where a proposed bill passed the State House of Representatives that includes a 25 ft. setback rule on coastal private property. While this is improved over the current 20 ft. setback, it is a far cry from the 100 ft. recommended by some scientists (Landers, 2017).1
In the oft-competitive and political setting in which decisions are made, the need to consider sound science should be a prerequisite for any decision-making process (Cairney, 2016), and academia can help. For academic science to be most impactful and usable in policy2 it is widely recognized that interdisciplinary research (coordinated and integrated research across disciplines) and transdisciplinary research (the result of inter-subjectivity, requiring close and continuous collaboration during all phases of a research project) must be strengthened, as well as knowledge that is ‘co-produced’ with user communities (NAS, 2005; Lawrence, 2010; SPARC, 2010; Ciannelli et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2015; McKinnon et al., 2015; Poppy, 2015). Numerous experts have long-promoted such collaboration for varied purposes, including from government (UNESCO, 1970; NIH, 2007), academia (Heberlein, 1988; CGS, 2014), industry (Businaro, 1983; Nugent & Kulkarni, 2013), and non-profits (Visholm et al., 2012).
Consider an example on the importance of transcending disciplinary boundaries toward improved policy outcomes—the need to shift to renewable energy sources to mitigate climate change impacts. In the U.S. state of Hawaii, use of solar photovoltaic (PV) power as a renewable energy source has been on the rise. In Oahu alone, a 40% increase in PV permits was reported from 2014–2015 (Shimogawa, 2015), in large part due to federal and state subsidies for the cost and installation of equipment (Sunetric, 2015). However, as unused electricity from homeowners was metered and sold back to the grid, costs were shifted to homeowners that did not have panels, including economically disadvantaged households. To address this, the utility closed the net energy metering program, leading to a sense of distrust for some homeowners, a steep decline in permitted projects, and the layoff of thousands of workers (Pyper, 2015).
In advance of instituting the subsidies program, academia would have been well-suited to study the challenges of distributed energy across economic, societal, and technological perspectives, and offer solutions to government and industry that could have avoided the burdens placed on low-income households, preventing the collapse of the program. To do so, a different model of knowledge production is needed, similar to what Gibbons et al., (2002) term transitioning from Mode 1 to Mode 2. Whereas Mode 1 characterizes traditional knowledge production as homogeneous, hierarchical, and preserving its form, Mode 2 is characterized by less permanent and more heterogeneous practitioners that collaborate on a specific issue in a local, place-based context. Mode 2 emphasizes application of knowledge, and that knowledge production is ultimately intended to be used by someone in industry, government or society. Because of this, the needs and interests of user-groups or individuals must be included at the outset, and, further, those that will apply the knowledge gained should participate in its generation. Mode 2 shifts from problem-solving by following the codes and norms of a particular discipline, to problem-solving being organized around a particular application, which may evolve as research expands. This model can help researchers understand the broader implications of their work, and anticipate indirect impacts from proposed policies, which can help decision-makers avoid unintended pitfalls.
In a further analysis of Post-Normal Science (PNS), Funtowiczi and Ravetz, (2003) explain a new paradigm for managing complex, science-related challenges where risks are not quantifiable, damage is potentially irreversible, and uncertainty, value loading, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives are impossible to avoid. These issues, such as integrated water resource management or the spread of viruses, are constantly changing through interactions with humans. It is a process where surprises will always be possible, and flexibility in decision-making requires open dialogue across all stakeholders. These ‘extended peer communities’ help shape the conditions of tomorrow by offering local knowledge, anecdotal evidence, and other contextualized information through participatory processes. In doing so, the resultant policies reflect the legitimate interests, values, and desires of potentially impacted communities and, therefore, are more likely to succeed.
The importance of pursing interdisciplinary research and knowledge co-production is well known. Yet today academia struggles still to deepen collaboration and impact decision-making (Pan et al., 2015; Cairney, 2016). Perhaps this is due to what Gibbons et al. characterize as shifting to a “distinct mode with its own set of cognitive and social norms,” some of which may “contrast sharply with deeply held beliefs about how reliable theoretical and practical knowledge should be generated…” Regardless, however, of whether a different type of knowledge production is unnerving some deep-seated belief, the fact is that the academic community continues to highlight the importance of these efforts, yet most academic and research institutions continue to lack the structure that cultivates and rewards inter/transdisciplinary solutions and linking to user groups. With a message that resonates today, Rhoten, (2004) aptly observed over a decade ago that “Across the spectrum of higher education, many initiatives deemed interdisciplinary are, in fact, merely reconfigurations of old studies—traditional modes of work patched together under a new label—rather than actual reconceptualizations and reorganizations of new research.” Thinking about health sciences, Adler and Stewart, (2010) furthered that “Traditional approaches to science reward individual effort. As a result, relatively few people have experience working in a highly collaborative manner, and some are not particularly interested in doing so.”
Across systems and within institutions, there remains little to no incentive for experts to engage in inter/transdisciplinary work to support decision-making. Rather, significant barriers exist to engaging in deep collaboration across fields of study and with decision-makers, not least of which result from the standards to which researchers are held, e.g., publications in narrow fields, citations, grants, and number of students, which are all success metrics that fail to show societal impact (Poppy, 2015). This continues to result in, as historian Page Smith described, research that “…does not result in any measurable benefit to anything or anybody. It does not push back those omnipresent ‘frontiers of knowledge’ so confidently evoked; it does not in the main result in greater health or happiness among the general populace or any particular segment of it. It is busywork on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale” (Smith, 1991). Given our limited resources and the gravity of the challenges before us, with some real and near-term challenges to our very sustainability, we must better focus our efforts toward the betterment of populations, the public, the world. Conducting more impactful science also will help students acquire skillsets critical to the pursuit of careers outside of academia, which is increasingly necessary as the gap between PhD graduates and available tenure positions grows (Gould, 2015).
We are presented with serious issues in addressing complex societal issues, not least of which may be that because academia is not better structured to deliver on the promises of interdisciplinarity, funding streams for such work may be at risk. While one analysis found that interdiscplinarity is on the rise (Van Noorden, 2015), another found that funders are failing to support collaborative research, perhaps because they do not prioritize its importance, use traditional review frameworks to assess proposals, or do not view proposed work as deeply collaborative (Shaman et al., 2013; Bromham et al., 2016). Nevertheless, funding does exist and is clearly prioritized by some key programs.3 We must continue to make the case for increased support. While there will always be a need to maintain and grow deep expertise, academia must also enable conditions that recognize success by the degree to which we engage with each other and decision-makers toward solving societal challenges.
In 2016 a group of researchers set out to address these issues, responding to the question of, with the case for enhanced interdisplinarity and co-produced knowledge in linking to decision-making being clear, why is academia failing to make greater progress, and what specific steps can be taken to overcome persistent challenges? The researchers used a mixed-methods approach that relied on two data collection exercises. First, an integrative literature study identified, analyzed and synthesized the results from existing relevant studies by searching JSTOR, Google Scholar and a university database with the key search terms “interdisciplinary research academia,” “science for decision-making academia,” “knowledge co-production academia,” and “applied research academia.” In particular, studies from Nature were closely scrutinized because of the recent special series the journal ran on interdisciplinarity. Second, participatory workshops were held to encourage learning, sharing and co-generation of knowledge across experts, decision-makers, and educators/academic administrators. Workshops allowed researchers to gather findings from a range of stakeholders while analyzing results from the literature review, identify new sources of information that were not identified in the review, and to test emerging recommendations with experts and educators. Similar approaches have been taken elsewhere, especially where studies need to bridge recommendations of knowledgeable experts with actions of practitioners, as they are shown to lead to more targeted identification and analysis of constraints and opportunities (Mor et al., 2012; Van Turnhout et al., 2014; MacMillan et al., 2014).
Through this iterative process, experts and practitioners examined persistent barriers and converged around a set of high-priority recommendations in three categories. The experts recognize that while much has been written on the issues surrounding interdisciplinary research and evidence-based policy making, less has been offered on the specific steps academia can take to advance the next stage, i.e., to address cultural and structural changes. Thus, while these findings are not novel, they reinforce and take forward consistent messages from a large number of expert discussions, and offer discrete steps that are targeted to specific audiences. Care was taken to craft recommendations that are actionable by university system administrators, institutional leadership, individual researchers, and funders within 2–5 years.
Academia remains one of the few sectors in which the public’s trust is consistently high (Funk et al., 2015; NAS, 2015). Further, solutions from academic research can be options-oriented, enabling decision-makers to weigh values across different approaches. Academia, with its ‘honest broker’ approach (Pielke, 2007), relative flexibility, and constant effort to test new concepts through observation, is well poised to assist society. Yet in order to play a more robust role, academic institutions must address persistent cultural and administrative barriers. Acting on the following recommendations would help academia evolve to meet this need, and would better demonstrate to funders that collaboration is necessary, possible, and rewarding.
Establish the role of research in linking to policy
Academia, both private and public, can and should play a more active role in linking natural science, socioeconomics, and other disciplines (e.g., engineering) to sensible policy. The need for this is particularly clear where concerted attempts are made to mislead decision-makers and the public with ‘disinformation campaigns’ (Oreskes and Conway, 2010; Michaels, 2008; Zatzman et al., 2008; Bessi et al., 2015; Thaler and Shiffman, 2015), which can lead to suboptimal, societally, or economically counterproductive—even dangerous—decisions. As we advance in the 21st Century, academic institutions should formally establish their role in informing policy by structuring for collaboration, and explicitly defining clear and timely pathways to distribute information and engage in knowledge building.
Incorporate and measure nontraditional standards of success at individual and institutional levels
Though individual universities, departments, and researchers can be starkly different, there are common issues around which a broader set of success criteria can be woven into new or existing internal frameworks. In promoting a new way of doing business, it will be key to affirm and reaffirm buy-in from faculty, non-tenured researchers, and external experts.
Draw the line between academia and activism while building trust
As institutions establish their roles in linking to policy they also must consider that scientific credibility is easy to lose and difficult to regain. Academic and research institutions should maintain flexibility to be opportunistic in venturing into new areas of work, but extreme care also should be taken to maintain credibility, a diversity of thought, and a strict ethical code. The optimal strategy to achieve this balance is to cast any recommended ‘solutions’ as a set of options for tackling issues, which also is likely to be most helpful to decision-makers who need to balance multiple social, economic, and political demands (Colglazier, 2016).
In implementing these recommendations, each system and institution will need to weigh up the investment of time and energy in collaborative projects versus individual investigations. Where such collaboration is pursued toward creative and practical solutions for priority societal challenges, efforts toward these recommendations can build credibility, and can eventually incentivize science to policy action by providing good examples and best practices. Nevertheless, implementing these recommendations will take time. Immediate first steps institutions can take to foster collaboration and better link science to policy include:
Promote the above ideas among associations of college and university presidents and deans, nationally and internationally, as well as across scientific groups and disciplines.
Collaborate with professional societies across disciplines, nationally and internationally, in promoting these ideas, while linking major industry associations with university presidents, deans, faculty and researchers.
Use MOUs or other collaborative agreements across departments and colleges that clearly define the role of researchers in inter/transdisciplinary studies.
Work with government relations offices in developing ties with local, state and national government decision-makers.
Educate researchers in communicating science to decision-makers and the public, including through social networks and crowdsourcing exercises.
In the longer term, a deeper change in public culture is needed—one of a strengthened respect for science. We must infuse not only decision-makers but teachers, children, and parents with the knowledge and tools they need to craft a better society—one that finds in science a trusted method to understand problems and find solutions. Academia can better cultivate this respect, ensuring that science continues to help us navigate an increasingly complex world.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
As of the time of this writing the Georgia Senate Natural Resources and the Environment Committee has refused to vote on the bill and instead has assigned it to a study committee for further analysis.
Legislative frameworks but also agency decisions at local, state/province, national and international levels, including judicial decisions, as well as industry frameworks.
See, e.g., NSF support: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/additional_resources/interdisciplinary_research/support.jsp
Outstanding researchers will remain whose work will not directly link to policy. Crafting different guidelines and reward structures for researchers who do not focus on policy can enhance their collaboration with those who do. In doing so, the ability to tap into the entire talent pool can be strengthened.
Care should be taken in devising such fellowships to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
This paper is the result of a interdisciplinary collaboration convened by the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies (HRI), Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. It would not have been possible without the sponsorship of the Harte Research Institute and the assistance of the Florida Institute for Oceanography. A group of experts in science and policy in academic research, primarily in marine affairs but with additional expertise expanding beyond (e.g., in physics and law), served as consultants and provided ongoing input into the development of this work. Special thanks are due for their guidance throughout the process.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.