Clarifying Concepts

One strategy that has been much-studied involves the development of pidgins or creoles: shared understandings that allow communication on the boundaries of any two disciplines. The classic citation is Galison, Peter. (1997). Image & logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Another significant source is Michael E. Gorman (ed.), Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration (MIT Press, 2010).

[Kessel, F.S., Rosenfield, P. L., & Anderson, N. B. (Eds.). Interdisciplinary research: Case studies from health and social science (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 437-8: "What the case studies in this volume illustrate is that if the team is committed to the solution of a particular problem, and given sufficient time, the collaborating individuals become conversant in the language of the “other,” and team members become able to communicate with each other at a variety of levels. In a direct and powerful way, absent successful communication, there can be no successful collaborative research. Thus the investment of time and interpersonal space for acquiring at least a well‐informed understanding of alternative conceptual and methodological languages is a prime requirement for successful interdisciplinary initiatives."

Another strategy involves trying to break complex concepts into a set of more basic concepts for which it is hoped that a greater degree of shared understanding is possible. Let us imagine that a research group is studying some aspects of “globalization.” In breaking this complex concept into basic concepts, it would be noted that it involves how economic and political integration, and the spread of cultural elements through mass media, affect political sovereignty, local economies, and local cultures. It would clearly be useful for the researchers in the group to appreciate which of the causal forces and which of the effects is stressed by each researcher (prototype theory would guide us to appreciate that some see globalization as primarily economic while others see it as primarily cultural). While ‘globalization’ lends itself to considerable ambiguity, we could anticipate a much greater degree of shared understanding of elements of globalization such as “increase trade flows as a share of GDP,” “increased flows of foreign investment” (though as seen above we need then to clearly define investment), “increased international access to songs via the internet” and so on. [Rick Szostak, “Communicating Complex Concepts” in Michael O’Rourke et al., Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, Sage, 2013, 34-55]

Some lessons drawn in that chapter:

· We cannot and, indeed, should not aspire to eliminate ambiguity entirely

· Indeed, ambiguity has some positive effects in allowing the curiosity of different researchers to be stimulated in different ways.

· It may not be necessary (at first) for everyone in the conversation to share the same understanding, as long as these different understandings are potentially consistent.

· Direct conflicts in definition likely create more of a challenge than differences in definition that are potentially consistent, but may be addressed more quickly.

· Breaking complex concepts into basic concepts can reduce the costs of ambiguity with limited or no effects on the benefits.

· Ambiguity can be decreased without all researchers sharing the same definition. If different definitions are consistent, then this result is straightforward. But even if definitions conflict, researchers can potentially come to understand the source of this conflict.

· The interdisciplinarian can usefully ask whether different definitions conflict or merely focus on different aspects of a problem.

· In cases where decreasing ambiguity does decrease curiosity, this will often be a good thing (for it will represent curiosity fired by misunderstanding).

· One bad kind of ambiguity is where vagueness about the meaning of a concept serves to hide logical or theoretical inconsistencies at its heart.

· One good kind of ambiguity is that associated (temporarily) with cutting edge research.

· Those who value ambiguity should not fear the right kind of clarification.

· The key to the right kind of clarity is inclusiveness. Interdisciplinarians should not casually ignore the interpretation of a concept pursued by any group.

Paul E. Griffiths and Karola Stotz, "Conceptual Barriers to Interdisciplinary Collaboration: When does ambiguity matter?," in Michael O’Rourke et al., Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, Sage, July, 2013, 195-215, discuss examples of ambiguous concepts. They argue that successful communication is possible as long as there are boundary objects that, while being interpreted differently in different communities, share enough commonalities that they encourage mutual understanding and compatible research.