Thomas S. Bateman wrote an article for The Conversation titled Scientists tend to superspecialize – but there are ways they can change (December 8, 2015).
« If scientists’ knowledge is segregated in non-overlapping silos, there can’t be cross-pollination between fields. »
« Crossing disciplinary boundaries is unusual – and crucially important. In 1998, groundbreaking thinker and eminent biologist EO Wilson cautioned against scientific overspecialization, warning that thought silos “…must be torn down in order for humanity to progress.” Sociobiologist Rebecca Costa argued in 2010 that “the more fortified and numerous silos become, the further away humankind strays from a unified, systemic approach to our greatest threats.” »
« The big problems we face today demand interdisciplinary innovation… Big ideas come from understanding the big picture and making cross-boundary connections, not only from eking out incremental advances in an esoteric subfield. »
« So why do people in different scientific specialties so rarely engage in meaningful collaborative projects? My collaborator Andrew Hess and I recently investigated scientists’ goals and work styles with an eye toward the depth versus breadth of their research output. »
« Amidst the calls for boundary-spanning collaboration, the fact is that most scientists work within institutional and professional contexts that overwhelmingly favor and reward deep specialization. Consider the names of departments and journals, how communications flow within rather than across unit boundaries, and how pay and grant monies are allocated. For some, the word “generalist” is pejorative, but collaborating across disciplines does not need to be a bad thing. In fact, in one survey of faculty, 70% agreed with the value of cross-disciplinary work. »
« How our researchers rated depth versus breadth… Fundamentally, these scientists saw boundary-crossing research as offering high levels of professional risk with low rewards and only meager professional returns. »
« Output reflects mindset… Researchers who were strongly motivated to demonstrate high performance (performance goal orientation) exhibited more depth over a decade of research, but not more breadth. The opposite – more breadth, and not more depth – held for those who reported great interest in trying and learning new things, even if doing so would prove costly in terms of time and professional advancement (high learning goal orientation). »
« Management theory and research make it clear that individuals and organizations both tend to favor the safer exploitation of current knowledge over exploration. All else equal, it’s more efficient and less frustrating to refine a previous finding. It’s tough to shift gears and investigate an altogether new question on a different topic requiring new learning, and likely mistakes, along a longer path to a publication. The unintended result, of course, is that the potential boundary-pushing benefits of exploration remain unrealized. »
« Some companies – including Apple, Unilever and the Cleveland Clinic – work hard to break down silo thinking and want their professionals and managers to be “T-shaped.” The vertical in the T is a specialty. The crossbar represents knowledge of other specialties, and/or, crucially, experience and skills in working creatively and effectively with people in different areas. For example, researchers Uhlenbrook and de Jong describe T-shaped competency profiles using water professionals – hydrologists, hydraulic engineers, land use specialist, water economists and water governance experts – who all need to collaborate, valuing each other’s expertise and willingly crossing subspecialty borders. »
Related reading:
- Boundary Spanning in Practice by Kitty Wooley et al.
- Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by E.O. Wilson
- Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein
- Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows
Articles of Interest 