So on the bus last week I finally got
the time to read an interesting article that’s been staring at me from the ever
growing “articles I should read” pile that sits on my desk, judging me for not
actually reading any of them.
 |
| Office (via stock.xchng) |
Yeah, you know, that pile.
This article by Greg Duncan from University of California Irvine hit on something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: interdisciplinary work.
This relates some to the topic I wrote
about a few weeks ago here where I discussed the need for a variety of perspectives and ways of knowing in order to successfully get the job done.
Duncan takes the position that the
field of child development could really benefit from broadening its scope to
begin enhancing the collaboration with experts in other disciplines to more fully
understand the human condition. He notes that child development research, partly due to
its relative infancy in terms of scientific progress, has not yet begun the
necessary branching out to encompass other disciplines’ conceptualizations of
the world to better advance existing developmental theories.
He uses some great examples of cases
in which combining child development research with data from economic studies
has enhanced our understanding of complex social problems in a way that
provides useful information for decision makers.
Really, in this article, Duncan relays
something I think we all need to hear occasionally:
There
are things others can tell us that are valuable, worthwhile.
The thing is, despite child
development research being in relative nascent stages compared to things like
physics or astronomy, it is constantly in the public limelight. Nary a
legislative session goes by without bills being debated that are pertinent to
the welfare of kids and families. I don’t often hear of bills that require
physicists to weigh in on important social or economic matters, unless it’s in
support of more research funding. Matters of physics are usually considerably
less controversial than things like funding for education or health.
Education and health are so prominent in our lives because we all are, or have all been, kids and families.
There is need for research
understanding in child development to weigh in on matters of policy – to help bridge the gap between what we know is good for kids and what we do for the good of kids. But the ability of child
development research to coherently address the breadth of what’s required for
major policy decisions is limited. Unfortunately, tackling issues of ensuring positive
outcomes for children while also providing assurances of return on an economic
investment, is something that basic child development research can seldom do
effectively.
And it's because we lack the breadth of
scope Duncan is talking about.
So why doesn’t this breadth of interdisciplinary
knowledge exist, especially when there is clearly a need for it?
Well
there are a few reasons for this that I see:
 |
| Six silos (via stock.xchng) |
1.
Scientific process: Fields like child
development are constantly pressured to follow a strict scientific method,
complete with randomized control trials and complex statistical modeling. Applied
research, which is considerably more messy because it operates in the real world, often lacks that intensive rigor.
Applied research is then often viewed as a less worthwhile form of research,
despite the fact that it might be more pertinent to the big questions at hand.
2.
Academic silos: Researchers traditionally live a
very isolated existence. They know “their people” very well, and become
incredible experts in their very specific field, but often do not branch out to
learn about experts in other fields. (If I had a dollar for every time people
within MY OWN UNIVERSITY asked what my group, the Extension Children, Youth and Family Consortium,
does—even though we’ve been around for over 20 years—I’d be a very rich woman.)
3.
Career pressures: To survive in academia you
have to publish, A LOT. And the only way to ensure you publish is by carving out
your niche and keep chipping away at that niche until it gives you a career.
Unfortunately, that chipping away also prevents you from focusing much outside
of your little corner of the world. You’re driven to focus on the minutia,
rather than the bigger picture, because the minutia is where the career, and
funding pressures, come from. Until that changes (don’t hold your breath), little
else will.
I don’t
mean for it to sound so bleak, because truthfully it’s not. There have been
sizable advancements made in application of child development theory and
practice over the last 10-15 years.
But we
could always do more.
Duncan’s
point is that only through deepening AND broadening the scope of the field can
we truly make the progress that is encouraged, even required of us. The
cross-disciplinary process requires creative thinkers and innovators to make
connections across fields of study we’d never imagine could help inform
questions about the biggest social and economic issues of our day.
And who
are scientists but creative thinkers?
We just
need an ever so slight shift in that creative energy. We need a call to look up
from the lab bench to see the world around us.
To see
the forest for the trees, and do something about it.
 |
| Forest sunrise (via stock.xchng) |
No comments:
Post a Comment