**Barriers to Transdisciplinary Research**

**In Youth Tobacco Use Prevention**

**A Report from the Working Group**

**To the Youth Tobacco Use Prevention Initiative**

**October 1998**

**^Working\ Group\ on^**

**^Barriers\ to\ Transdisciplinary\ Research^**

**^in\ Youth\ Tobacco\ Use\ Prevention^**

**Participants**

^Susanne\ Hildebrand-Zanki,\ Chair:\ ^*^California\ Tobacco-Related\ Disease\ Research\ Program^*

^Lois\ Cohen:\ ^*^Naitonal\ Institute\ of\ Dental\ Research^*

^Kenneth\ Perkins:\ ^*^University\ of\ Pittsburgh^*

^Denis\ Prager:\ ^*^Strategic\ Consulting\ Services^*

^Daniel\ Stokols:\ ^*^School\ of\ Social\ Ecology\ at\ the\ University\ of\ California,\ Irvine^*

^Jaylan\ Turkkan:\ ^*^National\ Institute\ on\ Drug\ Abuse^*

**^Task\ Description^**

^The\ task\ of\ this\ group\ was\ to\ identify\ barriers\ to\ multi-,\ inter-,\ and\ transdisciplinary\ youth\ tobacco\ prevention\ research.\ In\ order\ to\ achieve\ this\ task,\ the\ group\ has\ examined\ barriers\ facing\ researchers\ at\ the\ personal,\ professional,\ and\ institutional\ levels;\ the\ group\ has\ also\ identified\ barriers\ facing\ researchers\ at\ the\ funding\ level.\ ^

^This\ group\ then\ identified\ different\ models\ of\ transdisciplinary\ work\ that\ have\ been\ employed\ to\ foster\ research\ across\ disciplines,\ and\ examined\ their\ characteristics.\ The\ conditions\ under\ which\ researchers\ in\ a\ given\ field\ of\ inquiry\ are\ willing\ to\ engage\ in\ transdisciplinary\ research\ were\ also\ outlined.^

^The\ result\ of\ this\ group's\ efforts\ is\ a\ summary\ of\ the\ barriers\ identified,\ and\ suggestions\ for\ future\ efforts\ aimed\ at\ lowering\ or\ eliminating\ those\ barriers.\ The\ group\ has\ identified\ points\ toward\ which\ the\ interventions\ should\ be\ targeted\ in\ order\ for\ change\ to\ occur,\ both\ in\ the\ research\ setting\ and\ in\ the\ funding\ arena.\ ^

^The\ work\ of\ this\ group\ has\ been\ most\ closely\ linked\ with\ that\ of\ the\ work\ groups\ studying\ training\ needs\ and\ communication\ among\ funders.\ Training\ issues\ will\ certainly\ play\ a\ significant\ role\ in\ changing\ the\ way\ researchers\ and\ funders\ approach\ transdisciplinary\ research.\ Likewise,\ in\ order\ to\ increase\ the\ enthusiasm\ for\ transdisciplinary\ research,\ funders\ must\ increase\ their\ levels\ of\ communication\ and\ coordinate\ issuance\ of\ RFPs\ and\ evaluation\ of\ transdisciplinary\ research\ proposals.\ ^

**^Statement\ of\ the\ Problem^**

^There\ appears\ to\ be\ agreement\ among\ many\ scientists\ that\ several\ areas\ of\ science,\ among\ them\ youth\ tobacco\ use\ prevention\ research,\ could\ be\ forwarded\ and\ could\ benefit\ from\ a\ transdisciplinary\ approach.\ While\ there\ is\ a\ great\ deal\ of\ discussion\ on\ this\ topic,\ little\ action\ has\ taken\ place\ to\ promote\ such\ work\ and\ few\ attempts\ are\ evident\ to\ change\ this\ situation.^

^The\ type\ of\ collaboration\ envisioned\ here\ is\ the\ process\ by\ which\ scientists\ from\ different\ disciplines\ learn\ the\ intellectual\ and\ methodological\ foundations\ of\ each\ other's\ disciplines\ to\ the\ extent\ that\ they\ can\ be\ brought\ to\ bear\ in\ an\ integrated\ manner\ to\ address\ complex\ scientific\ and\ social\ problems.\ However,\ transdisciplinary\ research\ should\ not\ be\ equated\ with\ large\ scale,\ multiple-project\ work.\ It\ can\ be\ done\ within\ the\ framework\ of\ a\ single\ project,\ involving\ one\ or\ more\ co-investigators\ who\ bring\ to\ bear\ their\ own\ perspective\ and\ who\ might\ contribute\ to\ a\ new\ conceptual\ framework\ within\ which\ the\ problem\ is\ investigated.\ ^

One of the reasons for the lack of transdisciplinary investigations is
that the U.S. research enterprise is not well suited for such endeavors.
Another reason for the discrepancy between words and actions is a lack
of perceived value in transdisciplinary research among many scientists;
few investigators believe that it would serve them or their careers to
pursue it. Institutional representatives, too, may extol the virtue of
transdisciplinary research, but the reality is that most research
institutions are set up in a way that actually discourages cooperation
and collaboration across disciplines. Any individual researcher who
wants to carry out transdisciplinary work is faced with a multitude of
barriers and relatively few rewards. These barriers are present at the
individual, institutional, and funding levels.

Unfortunately, this state of affairs has not changed substantially over
the last several decades. In 1969, Donald T. Campbell listed many of the
same barriers we still face today, nearly 30 years later.^1^ For change
to occur, discussions of theoretical benefits must be backed with a
commitment towards action on the part of those who can affect the status
quo, namely decision makers at research institutions, funding agencies,
professional organizations, and editorial boards of professional
journals. But it also requires a change in how researchers view and
value the work being done in other disciplines.

As Kahn and Prager stated in *The Scientist*^4^ in 1994, scientific
knowledge is a collective enterprise. It is quite apparent that no one
individual can have a comprehensive understanding of his or her
discipline, let alone of unrelated ones. This means that today's
students are trained in narrowly focused specialty areas. However, for
science to advance, individuals must be given the incentive and the
opportunity to look outside their own areas for inspiration and to keep
the broader context of their work in mind. Unless there is a belief that
work in other areas can inform and improve one's own work, there will be
little progress towards making a transdisciplinary approach to a problem
as common place as disciplinary approaches.

In the area of youth tobacco use prevention research, there is very
little evidence of transdisciplinary work in the published literature.
And yet, this is an area where progress is desperately needed. Smoking
among youth is on the increase, and we still do not have a good handle
on how to prevent them from starting the behavior, let alone encouraging
them to quit. It is clear that there are many different factors that
work together to lead children from the first cigarette to addiction,
including environmental factors, social influences, access to tobacco
products, psychological issues, genetic predisposition, pharmacological
variables, and so on. Scientists from all disciplines involved in
exploring these different issues need to be aware of the findings in
other areas and how they impact their own work and the interpretation of
their data. We need a comprehensive understanding of the problem and
potential avenues for interventions. Only then will we achieve the
objective of effectively reducing youth tobacco use.

**Barriers **

**Personal. **As Campbell lays out very convincingly, the division of
the research endeavor into specific disciplines and the organization of
research institutions into corresponding departments is highly
artificial and more attributable to historical development than to
scientific necessity.^1^ Thus there is much overlap between disciplines
such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, geography, political
science, economics, and so on. Yet, once a scholar has identified with
any one of these disciplines and has found his or her niche in it, the
focus of scientific interest and competence will drift towards the
"central" issues of that discipline, rather than the areas of overlap
with other disciplines. This attitude is supported and enforced by
memberships in professional societies and subscriptions to journals that
are relevant to one's discipline. Hence, the tendency is to look inward,
rather than outward, with the result that the work in other disciplines,
which may be very relevant, is easily overlooked.

But it is not only ignorance of other work that is operating here. There
is also skepticism regarding the methodologies and validity of findings
produced by researchers in other fields. And then there is the issue of
the scientific jargon that develops within disciplines and which has the
effect of keeping outsiders, and not just the lay public, at bay. In
order to foster collaborations, investigators must be willing to talk to
each other through the development of a shared language which allows the
expression and understanding of conceptual frameworks across
disciplines.^4^

Another barrier is the need for the realization that a transdisciplinary
approach will further the research field. Without the appreciation of
other areas it is difficult to incorporate other methodologies or
findings into one's own research. Thus, an individual investigator must
be willing to put in the time to engage in a dialogue with colleagues
from other disciplines to gain a sense of how concepts from those fields
can be employed in a novel way. This requires creativity and the ability
to think "outside the box."

At most research institutions, tenure, one of the most coveted goals for
an academician, is awarded based on the publication record, especially
single-authored or first-authored publications, in peer-reviewed
journals. Another important criterion is the ability to obtain
independent grant support as a principal investigator. This process has
the effect of leading to publication on narrow topics which fall safely
within the boundaries of a single discipline, and which are thus
publishable in the major journals for a given discipline. Research which
utilizes the accepted methodologies of a discipline and which deals with
research issues accepted as important, will have an easier time getting
funded as well as being accepted for publication or presentation at
professional meetings. In addition, in many settings and with many
funding agencies, work published in theoretical, scientific journals is
regarded more highly than work in the applied, professional journals.
This discourages a problem solving focus and a concern with the real
world impact of the research. Thus, the realities of building a
successful career are powerful incentives to stay within one's own
discipline. This is especially true if the area in question provides a
great deal of opportunities for productive work, which further
contributes to the lowering of incentives to look outside the boundaries
of one's discipline.

Therefore, it takes an adventurous and creative investigator to look at
other fields and to see the potential implications for his or her own
work. In order for an individual to be willing to take the risks
involved in true intellectual collaborative efforts, he or she has to be
secure enough to devote the time and energy necessary for the long
learning process involved, to actively and openly engage "alien"
traditions, perspectives, methods, and people, and to incorporate new
concepts and methods into his or her own research. Such an individual is
likely someone just embarking on a research career who can take a few
risks before settling into a discipline, or one who has made a name for
him- or herself and has the kind of "job security" that allows him or
her to branch out and form bridges to other disciplines.

**Organizational. **Additional barriers exist at the institutional
level. While researchers and administrators alike might believe that
transdisciplinary research is desirable, the organizational realities
dictate otherwise. Currently, most research institutions are organized
into departments along established discipline lines. These departments
vie for limited resources, which fosters an atmosphere of competition,
rather than collaboration, and leads to defending one's own turf. At
many research institutions, indirect costs paid by funding agencies are
allocated back to the department where the grants and contracts reside
and often constitute a major portion of a department chair's
discretionary funds. Departments that bring in large amounts of outside
resources are rewarded when it comes to faculty positions, staffing, and
space allocation. Thus, collaborations between investigators from
different departments are often seen as reducing each department's
resources.

Another concern is the offering of transdisciplinary courses. Who gets
credit for the development and teaching of the course? To which
department do the attending students get credited? These issues are
especially critical at institutions where resources are allocated based
on enrollment and teaching load.

Most of the personal and institutional barriers are not based on
scientific or scholarly objections, but they result in a lack of
opportunities for faculty to engage in transdisciplinary research. Len
Epstein, in his recent President's Column in *The Health
Psychologist*^2^ outlined a number of steps that could be taken by an
institution to lower these barriers and to promote transdisciplinary
work. His suggestions include making interdisciplinary research a
variable in hiring decisions, reassessing how resources are allocated,
developing mentoring models for junior faculty, and using collaboration
as a variable in choosing and retaining department chairs. Underlying
these suggestions is the assumption that institutional behavior can be
changed if the people in the organization believe in the value of
collaborative research.

**Funding Agencies. **Another area where investigators who would like to
pursue transdisciplinary research run into barriers is at the funding
level. By far the largest source of research funding are the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). Applicants to NIH send their proposals to
the Center of Scientific Review (CSR) where they are reviewed by a
referral officer and assigned to an institute and to a study section.
There are over 110 standing study sections at NIH which are charged with
reviewing the 40,000 plus applications received by NIH each year. These
study sections have evolved over the years and the members in any one
section come from disciplines which share conceptual frameworks and
experimental methodologies. The members of a study section serve three
year terms and applications are assigned to them based on their
expertise, i.e., applications are fitted to existing reviewers, rather
than reviewers being recruited for the applications on hand. If a study
section is faced with the need for additional expertise that is not
represented by the standing members, ad hoc reviewers are brought in.
However, it should be obvious that any *ad hoc* reviewer joining a
standing committee is not going to have the same influence as the
standing members and will have a difficult task in convincing those who
are unfamiliar with the area or the approach to see its importance.

Thus, an applicant who is engaged in transdisciplinary work is going to
run into problems when it comes to the assignment of his or her
application to a study section, since the application will not fit
neatly into any one area. The result is that the application will have a
hard time competing with other proposals which deal with a subject area
that is much more familiar to the reviewers.

Most of the non-NIH funding agencies apply review mechanisms that are
modeled after the NIH and thus, for better or worse, replicate the
barriers created by this paradigm. At the funding level, the
organization along disciplines is repeated and mirrors the organization
of research institutions. This makes it easy to review the traditional
types of applications but makes it difficult for any proposals not
oriented along discipline lines to get fundable scientific merit scores.

Even if funding agencies want to promote transdisciplinary work, program
administrators are faced with a number of issues. Since
transdisciplinary work is not encouraged at the institutional level, few
applications will be submitted spontaneously. This poses the question of
how to encourage such work despite a non-existent infrastructure. Is
there a field that is stifled by its current methodologies that would
benefit from the influx of new approaches? How do funding agencies go
about finding these areas? Which research questions lend themselves to
such an approach? Should requests for proposals be targeted to give
potential applicants a roadmap to work from, or should the net be cast
widely to give investigators the chance to develop research questions
that they are excited about and that will encourage them to apply? Who
are the investigators that could carry out such research and how can
they best be reached?

Another problem is that review committees are not used to working across
disciplinary lines. *Ad hoc* committees comprised of experts in the
various disciplines have a tendency to overvalue the importance of their
own field and to discount the contributions of other areas. There is
little trust and appreciation and often turf issues overshadow the
scientific debate. Standing committees would provide an opportunity to
develop trust and appreciation among the members. However, a standing
committee is only feasible if there is a longer-term commitment on the
part of the funding agency. The members of such a committee would have
to be carefully selected to ensure that the transdisciplinary approach
is given more than lip service.

Funding agencies also have little knowledge of what other funders are
doing in the area. There are no concerted efforts to promote
transdisciplinary research and there is no systematic communication
about successful or unsuccessful efforts from which funders can learn.

**Experimental Strategies**

In spite of the barriers, there are several examples in the research
world where transdisciplinary research has been fostered. Some of them
have been initiated by research institutions, while others have had
their impetus from funding agencies.

**Research Networks or Teams.** Particular agencies and foundations
support *ad hoc* research teams or networks with the charge of
developing a transdisciplinary perspective on a specific research topic
or question. Complex research questions, such as the etiology of tobacco
use, which require input from and collaboration across a broad range of
disciplines, lend themselves to this type of approach. It is also useful
for employing transdisciplinary approaches aimed at circumscribed,
finely targeted research questions which can be answered in a relatively
short timeframe.

However, there are some key constraints to effective transdisciplinary
collaboration in networks and teams. The duration of these *ad hoc*
collaborations are typically time-limited and the date by which the
effort is to be concluded (e.g., the due-date for a team report to an
agency or foundation), and at which time the team is to be dissolved, is
often known in advance by the members of the team. Therefore, commitment
to sustain and extend the collaboration that develops around a specific
research question or topic typically wanes once the team is dissolved.

Also, the time available for face-to-face communications among team and
network members is typically quite limited. Often, the members of these
groups work remotely in different parts of the country or world,
communicating with each other asynchronously (e.g., via voice and e-mail
messages). Synchronous or \"real time\" interactions are arranged from
time to time in the form of workshops and conferences or via
teleconferencing; but the opportunities for sustained interaction and
collaborative \"brainstorming\" are often few and far between.

Each member\'s commitment of time and energy to their team\'s
collaborative research tasks are limited by the demands on their time
and other research involvement linked to their \"home\" institutions and
organizations. Thus, the member of a foundation-sponsored research team
typically must \"juggle\" other research, administration, and service
activities along with their commitments to the research team.

Therefore, when *ad hoc* research teams and networks are formed, efforts
should be made to maximize opportunities for face-to-face meetings and
working sessions among team members. Additionally, ways should be found
to sustain collaboration and interaction among team members beyond the
formal lifespan of the network or team. This might be accomplished
through the establishment of e-mail listserves and team \"reunions\" at
specified intervals, perhaps oriented toward the development of
collaborative publications and grant proposals, once the team has
formally disbanded.

In addition, Denis Prager has identified several key factors that can
predict whether a network or team is likely to succeed^5^:

·
^Timing\ is\ critical.\ The\ success\ of\ a\ collaborative\ effort\ depends\ on\ the\ readiness\ of\ the\ field\ for\ such\ approaches,\ the\ existence\ of\ a\ critical\ mass\ of\ talent\ and\ capacity,\ and\ the\ willingness\ of\ a\ small\ group\ of\ leading\ researchers\ to\ take\ part\ in\ the\ collaboration.\ ^

·
^The\ rationale\ for\ the\ collaborative\ effort\ has\ to\ be\ sound\ and\ the\ duration\ of\ funding\ needs\ to\ be\ articulated\ up-front.^

·
^There\ has\ to\ be\ buy-in\ and\ commitment\ from\ everyone\ involved.^

·
^Funding\ cannot\ be\ the\ principle\ motivation\ for\ participation\ in\ a\ research\ network.^

·
^The\ role\ of\ the\ chair\ is\ crucial\ to\ the\ success\ of\ the\ network.^

·
^Network\ members\ must\ have\ personal\ and\ professional\ maturity\ and\ security,\ a\ working\ style\ characterized\ by\ openness,\ trust,\ and\ a\ willingness\ to\ share,\ a\ strong\ commitment\ to\ the\ problem\ under\ investigation,\ and\ the\ scientific\ skills,\ expertise,\ and\ perspective\ that\ are\ central\ to\ the\ network's\ capacity\ to\ achieve\ its\ goals.^

·
^The\ funder's\ program\ office\ plays\ a\ critical\ role\ in\ laying\ out\ the\ foundation's\ expectations,\ providing\ advice\ and\ facilitation,\ and\ supporting\ the\ chair's\ leadership\ role.^

·
^Administrative\ and\ financial\ decisions\ should\ be\ made\ by\ the\ chair.^

·
^The\ budget\ should\ include\ funding\ for\ a\ network\ administrator.^

· ^The\ timely\ supply\ of\ materials\ and\ data\ has\ to\ be\ assured.^

· ^Monitoring\ of\ progress\ should\ involve\ external\ advisors.^

**^Organized\ Research\ Units.\ ^**^Some\ institutions\ try\ to\ circumvent\ the\ barriers\ to\ collaboration\ by\ establishing\ organized\ research\ units\ (ORUs).\ Since\ these\ units\ lie\ outside\ departments,\ they\ can\ avoid\ the\ intradepartmental\ competition\ for\ funds.\ But\ as\ Kahn\ and\ Prager\ point\ out,\ these\ units\ have\ problems\ of\ their\ own.4\ As\ a\ rule,\ they\ do\ not\ have\ degree-granting\ authority,\ and\ their\ faculty\ usually\ do\ not\ have\ teaching\ responsibilities,\ which\ separates\ them\ from\ contact\ with\ students.\ This\ separation\ is\ disadvantageous\ to\ those\ faculty\ who\ truly\ love\ to\ teach\ and\ it\ deprives\ the\ students\ of\ an\ opportunity\ to\ learn\ from\ scientists\ who\ are\ engaged\ in\ transdisciplinary\ research\ and\ who\ could\ serve\ as\ role\ models\ for\ the\ next\ generation\ of\ investigators.\ ORUs\ are\ also\ often\ funded\ solely\ through\ outside\ funding\ sources.\ This\ means\ that\ researchers\ are\ constantly\ searching\ for\ continued\ grant\ support,\ which\ detracts\ from\ their\ ability\ to\ conduct\ research.\ The\ issues\ of\ tenure\ and\ professional\ recognition\ are\ also\ not\ addressed\ with\ this\ model.^

**^Permanent\ Institutional\ Structures.\ ^**^Permanent,\ institutional\ structures,\ such\ as\ research\ centers,\ institutes,\ interdisciplinary\ programs,\ and\ schools\ or\ colleges,\ based\ in\ either\ university\ or\ non-academic\ settings,\ are\ another\ approach\ to\ transdisciplinary\ research.\ Complex\ research\ problems\ that\ are\ closely\ related\ to\ community\ and\ environmental\ problems\ may\ be\ effective\ in\ fueling\ transdisciplinary\ research\ collaborations\ within\ the\ context\ of\ these\ more\ permanent\ organizational\ entities,\ especially\ if\ the\ organizations\ are\ dedicated\ to\ sustaining\ a\ dialogue\ between\ basic\ research\ and\ policy\ analysis.^

^As\ Kahn\ and\ Prager\ note,\ "Some\ attempts\ to\ escape\ from\ the\ ethnocentrism\ of\ university\ departments\ are\ successful,\ although\ they\ tend\ to\ be\ marginal.\ Most\ numerous\ are\ interdepartmental\ groups\ of\ faculty\ members\ who,\ recognizing\ an\ area\ of\ common\ interest,\ come\ together\ to\ discuss\ issues,\ plan\ and\ conduct\ research,\ and\ perhaps\ even\ train\ graduate\ students.\ The\ typical\ life\ of\ these\ units\ is\ embattled\ and\ short."4\ They\ are\ in\ danger\ of\ being\ relegated\ to\ second-class\ status\ and\ have\ a\ difficult\ time\ effectively\ competing\ for\ resources\ and\ students.\ The\ longevity\ of\ non-traditional\ programs\ is\ jeopardized\ by\ their\ marginalized\ role\ and\ status.\ During\ worsening\ state\ and\ federal\ budgets,\ non-traditional\ academic\ units\ are\ the\ first\ to\ be\ threatened\ with\ dissolution\ because\ they\ are\ often\ viewed\ by\ administrators\ as\ "luxury\ items"\ within\ an\ organizational\ structure\ that\ aspires\ to\ be\ leaner\ and\ more\ "efficient".\ Those\ programs\ that\ are\ successful\ in\ spite\ of\ the\ adverse\ environmental\ conditions,\ face\ a\ whole\ new\ set\ of\ challenges.\ ^

^Dan\ Stokols\ observes\ that\ with\ success\ comes\ growth,\ and\ growth\ make\ these\ programs\ increasingly\ cumbersome\ as\ organizational\ units,\ since\ all\ academic\ tasks\ (e.g.,\ curriculum\ planning,\ merits\ and\ promotion\ reviews,\ graduate\ and\ undergraduate\ admissions)\ are\ often\ handled\ by\ the\ faculty\ as\ a\ committee\ of\ the\ whole.\ A\ natural\ development\ is\ to\ reorganize\ as\ a\ \"School\"\ with\ transdisciplinary\ \"Areas\"\ or\ \"Departments\".\ These\ new\ organizations\ create\ centrifugal\ forces\ toward\ fragmentation\ and\ specialization,\ but\ these\ potential\ costs\ have\ to\ be\ weighed\ against\ the\ prospects\ of\ an\ abruptly\ shortened\ organizational\ lifespan\ brought\ about\ by\ the\ lack\ of\ institutional\ support.^

^Thus,\ substantial\ efforts\ have\ to\ be\ made\ to\ balance\ the\ pressures\ toward\ fragmentation\ triggered\ by\ departmental\ structures\ and\ identities\ within\ a\ School,\ on\ the\ one\ hand,\ and\ countervailing\ forces\ toward\ maintaining\ the\ transdisciplinary\ academic\ mission\ of\ the\ School.\ This\ can\ be\ done\ in\ a\ variety\ of\ ways6:^

·
^Strengthening\ the\ school-wide\ core\ curriculum\ at\ undergraduate\ and\ graduate\ levels\ that\ introduces\ the\ students\ to\ the\ transdisciplinary\ paradigm;^

·
^Establishing\ monitoring\ committees\ to\ pay\ attention\ to\ the\ transdisciplinary\ mission\ and\ to\ develop\ strategies\ for\ maintaining\ the\ School\'s\ commitment\ to\ transdisciplinary\ research;^

· ^Highlighting\ successful\ work\ among\ students\ and\ faculty;^

· ^Establishing\ courses\ on\ interdisciplinary\ research;^

·
^Creating\ avenues\ that\ help\ to\ reinforce\ social\ contacts\ and\ shared\ interests,\ and\ a\ sense\ of\ community\ in\ the\ School\ as\ a\ whole;^

·
^Hiring\ faculty\ members\ whose\ research\ interests\ and\ academic\ degrees\ span\ two\ or\ more\ fields/disciplines;^

·
^Encouraging\ faculty\ members\ to\ affiliate\ with\ more\ than\ one\ department\ in\ the\ school.^

^Gerth\ and\ Mills\ wrote\ about\ the\ inevitable\ forces\ toward\ bureaucratization,\ as\ organizations\ become\ larger\ and\ more\ differentiated.\ It\ is\ these\ pressures\ of\ size\ and\ differentiation,\ as\ well\ as\ the\ formal\ establishment\ of\ department\ structures\ and\ identities,\ that\ create\ potential\ and\ actual\ barriers\ to\ transdisciplinary\ collaboration\ in\ academic\ settings.3\ \ ^

**^Conclusions^**

**^Individual\ Barriers^**

·
^It\ is\ apparent\ that\ transdisciplinary\ research\ still\ does\ not\ have\ a\ secure\ place\ in\ the\ research\ arena,\ even\ though\ the\ necessity\ for\ broad-based\ approaches\ to\ complex\ medical\ and\ social\ problems\ has\ been\ recognized\ for\ decades.^

·
^There\ is\ a\ general\ lack\ of\ "buy-in"\ from\ the\ research\ community\ into\ the\ concept\ of\ transdisciplinary\ research,\ which\ is\ often\ viewed\ as\ second-class\ science\ that\ does\ not\ produce\ results.^

·
^For\ the\ individual\ scientist,\ the\ research\ environment\ provides\ extremely\ strong\ incentives\ to\ work\ within\ an\ established\ discipline,\ using\ its\ established\ methodologies\ on\ problems\ that\ are\ deemed\ important\ in\ the\ field.\ This\ path\ is\ the\ one\ most\ likely\ to\ lead\ to\ personal\ and\ professional\ recognition,\ research\ funding\ support,\ and\ tenure.^

·
^Transdisciplinary\ research\ takes\ commitment,\ time,\ and\ risk.\ Investigators\ willing\ to\ engage\ in\ it\ need\ professional\ and\ personal\ security\ to\ undertake\ such\ risk.\ This\ means\ that\ the\ incentives\ to\ engage\ in\ transdisciplinary\ work\ must\ outweigh\ the\ barriers\ and\ risks.\ These\ incentives\ should\ include\ intellectual\ rewards,\ but\ other\ factors\ such\ as\ monetary\ resources\ must\ first\ attract\ investigators\ to\ this\ type\ of\ research.^

**^Institutional\ Barriers^**

·
^Research\ institutions\ are\ typically\ not\ structured\ to\ promote\ transdisciplinary\ research.\ The\ methods\ for\ resource\ allocation\ serve\ as\ disincentives\ for\ department\ chairs\ to\ encourage\ collaborations\ across\ departmental\ boundaries.^

·
^Successful\ attempts\ at\ institutionalizing\ transdisciplinary\ research\ are\ few,\ and\ they\ face\ a\ constant\ struggle\ to\ maintain\ their\ transdisciplinary\ focus\ and\ not\ to\ revert\ to\ an\ organization\ of\ fragmented\ and\ segregated\ departments\ ^

·
*^Ad\ hoc^*^\ research\ networks\ or\ teams\ can\ be\ successful\ promoters\ of\ transdisciplinary\ research.\ However,\ the\ success\ depends\ on\ a\ number\ of\ factors\ that\ need\ to\ be\ kept\ in\ mind\ when\ organizing\ such\ a\ structure.\ ^

**^Funding\ Barriers^**

·
^Currently,\ funding\ agencies\ are\ no\ more\ committed\ to\ supporting\ transdisciplinary\ research\ than\ investigators\ are\ to\ engaging\ in\ it.^

·
^Peer\ review\ committees\ are\ largely\ organized\ along\ like-minded\ approaches,\ making\ it\ exceedingly\ difficult\ for\ transdisciplinary\ proposals\ to\ succeed.^

·
^The\ experience\ to\ date\ has\ shown\ that\ in\ transdisciplinary\ review\ committees,\ turf\ issues\ often\ take\ over,\ to\ the\ detriment\ of\ the\ scientific\ evaluation.^

·
^It\ is\ doubtful\ that\ transdisciplinary\ research\ can\ be\ adequately\ reviewed\ within\ existing\ study\ sections,\ since\ those\ are\ necessarily\ focused\ on\ specific\ methods\ and\ topics\ (e.g.\ behavioral\ substance\ abuse\ research).\ Even\ special\ review\ committees\ would\ probably\ be\ inadequate\ because\ of\ the\ unusual\ perspective\ required\ in\ reviewing\ transdisciplinary\ research.^

·
^Until\ transdisciplinary\ research\ is\ better\ accepted\ and\ understood,\ investigators\ likely\ would\ want\ members\ of\ review\ committees\ to\ represent\ all\ of\ the\ primary\ expertise\ going\ into\ their\ projects\ (e.g.\ geneticists\ and\ epidemiologists\ on\ review\ committee,\ if\ the\ project\ cuts\ across\ genetics\ and\ epidemiology).\ Over\ and\ above\ these\ reviewers,\ there\ should\ be\ members\ specifically\ included\ who\ could\ see\ the\ \"big\ picture\"\ presented\ in\ the\ grant\ proposals\ and\ who\ can\ evaluate\ how\ the\ pieces\ fit\ together\ and\ how\ well\ (or\ how\ poorly)\ the\ coinvestigators\ are\ working\ together\ to\ push\ the\ science\ forward.\ ^

·
^It\ will\ likely\ be\ necessary\ to\ establish\ separate\ study\ sections\ altogether,\ specifically\ focused\ on\ transdisciplinary\ projects.\ NIH\ has\ specialized\ award\ mechanisms\ (program\ projects,\ centers,\ etc.)\ with\ specific\ review\ criteria,\ and\ transdisciplinary\ research\ could\ be\ handled\ in\ the\ same\ way.^

·
^The\ selection\ of\ study\ section\ members\ must\ be\ done\ with\ the\ objective\ of\ that\ study\ section\ in\ mind:\ reviewers\ should\ share\ the\ belief\ that\ transdisciplinary\ research\ is\ valuable;\ they\ must\ be\ able\ to\ look\ at\ the\ continuum\ of\ the\ research\ field;\ and\ they\ should\ have\ a\ history\ of\ doing\ transdisciplinary\ work.\ Since\ peer\ reviewers\ come\ from\ the\ ranks\ of\ investigators,\ it\ is\ clear\ that\ there\ is\ a\ dearth\ of\ people\ in\ the\ current\ research\ environment\ who\ are\ capable\ of\ filling\ the\ role\ of\ reviewer.\ This\ means\ that\ funding\ agencies\ must\ select\ these\ reviewers\ with\ a\ great\ deal\ of\ thought\ and\ must\ provide\ them\ with\ appropriate\ training,\ in\ order\ to\ allow\ the\ review\ committees\ to\ achieve\ their\ objective.^

**^Recommendations^**

^It\ is\ clear\ that\ bringing\ transdisciplinary\ research\ into\ the\ mainstream\ will\ require\ cooperation\ between\ research\ institutions\ and\ funding\ agencies,\ which\ means\ that\ there\ has\ to\ be\ a\ dialogue\ between\ them\ to\ facilitate\ the\ necessary\ changes.\ From\ the\ findings\ and\ conclusions\ of\ this\ report,\ the\ following\ recommendations\ should\ be\ helpful\ to\ improve\ the\ quantity\ and\ quality\ of\ transdisciplinary\ research\ in\ the\ field\ of\ youth\ tobacco\ use\ prevention:^

·
^Enlist\ the\ help\ of\ organizations\ who\ are\ involved\ with\ and\ have\ influence\ on\ research\ institutions\ to\ develop\ an\ action\ plan\ of\ how\ transdisciplinary\ research\ could\ be\ better\ accommodated\ and\ promoted\ at\ research\ institutions.\ This\ action\ plan\ should\ address\ the\ establishment\ of\ incentives\ and\ elimination\ of\ disincentives\ for\ transdisciplinary\ research.^

·
^Assess\ the\ readiness\ of\ the\ researchers\ in\ the\ area\ of\ youth\ tobacco\ use\ prevention\ to\ engage\ in\ transdisciplinary\ work.^

·
^Develop\ a\ research\ agenda\ for\ transdisciplinary\ youth\ tobacco\ use\ prevention\ research\ that\ allows\ different\ funding\ agencies\ to\ contribute\ resources\ to\ the\ field\ in\ a\ concerted\ effort\ to\ prevent\ youth\ from\ smoking.^

·
^Commission\ a\ paper\ or\ study\ to\ compile\ findings,\ examples,\ and\ breakthroughs\ coming\ from\ transdisciplinary\ research\ in\ related\ fields.^

·
^Promote\ multidisciplinary\ conferences\ on\ the\ topic\ to\ bring\ investigators\ together\ and\ allow\ them\ to\ share\ their\ experiences.\ In\ addition,\ support\ extended\ summer\ institutes\ where\ scientists\ are\ exposed\ to\ the\ perspectives\ and\ skills\ of\ other\ disciplines.^

·
^Establish\ new\ training\ paradigms\ through\ which\ the\ next\ generation\ of\ researchers\ is\ taught\ to\ appreciate\ the\ benefits\ of\ transdisciplinary\ research\ and\ the\ methodology\ for\ incorporating\ it.^

·
^Convene\ a\ task\ force\ to\ assess\ how\ review\ committees\ for\ transdisciplinary\ research\ might\ best\ be\ organized.^

·
^Establish\ the\ necessary\ infrastructure\ at\ funding\ agencies\ that\ allows\ and\ promotes\ sharing\ of\ awards\ among\ different\ agencies\ by\ giving\ credit\ to\ all\ involved\ in\ funding\ a\ particular\ grant\ or\ contract.^

·
^Use\ the\ "decade\ of\ behavior"\ to\ increase\ awareness\ and\ interest\ in\ the\ issue\ and\ to\ have\ a\ major\ transdisciplinary\ initiative\ involving\ various\ agencies\ who\ support\ youth\ tobacco\ use\ prevention\ research.^

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

**^References^**

^1.\ Campbell,\ D.T.\ "Ethnocentrism\ of\ disciplines\ and\ the\ fish-scale\ model\ of\ omnicience".\ In\ eds.\ M.\ Sherif\ and\ C.W.\ Sherif\ [Interdisicplinary\ relationships\ in\ the\ social\ sciences]{.underline}.\ Chicago:\ Aldine\ Press\ (1969):\ 328-348.^

2\.
^Epstein,\ L.\ "Models\ for\ interdisciplinary\ research".\ [The\ Health\ Psychologist]{.underline}\ 20(1998):1,\ 20.^

3\.
^Gerth\ H.H.\ and\ C.\ W.\ Mills\ "Bureaucracy".\ In\ M.Weber\ [Essays\ in\ Sociology]{.underline}.\ New\ York:\ Oxford\ University\ Press\ (1958):\ 196-244.^

4\.
^Kahn,\ R.L.\ and\ D.J.\ Prager.\ "Interdisciplinary\ collaborations\ are\ a\ scientific\ and\ social\ imperative".\ [The\ Scientist]{.underline}\ July\ 11,\ 1994.^

5\. ^Prager,\ D.J.\ Personal\ communications.^

^6.\ Stokols,\ D.\ "The\ future\ of\ interdiscipinarity\ in\ the\ School\ of\ Social\ Ecology".\ Paper\ presented\ at\ the\ Social\ Ecology\ Associates\ Annual\ Awards\ Reception,\ School\ of\ Social\ Ecology,\ University\ of\ California,\ Irvine.\ May\ 1998.^