Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in the Experiences of Science and Technology Researchers: Focusing on the Perceptions, Difficulties, and Overcoming Strategies

과학기술 연구자들의 경험을 통해 살펴본 학제간 협업 -인식, 어려움 그리고 극복전략을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2023.02.27
  • Accepted : 2023.04.03
  • Published : 2023.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study identified the perceptions of science and technology researchers about interdisciplinary collaboration and the difficulties experienced in the collaboration process and the types of strategies they set up to overcome them. For this study, a questionnaire was developed with five-point Likert-scale questions that confirm attitudes toward interdisciplinary collaboration and qualitative questions that describe difficulties and strategies to overcome difficulties experienced in the collaboration experience. A total of 79 domestic science and technology researchers responded to the survey, and the collected data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. As a result of the study, it was confirmed that the recognition of the efficacy of collaboration had an important influence on the intention of collaboration, but the level of the recognition of the efficacy of collaboration was relatively low. In addition, there were four types of difficulties in the interdisciplinary collaboration process, and seven types of strategies were identified to overcome these. Based on these findings, it was suggested that convergence education should reflect the pluralistic nature of modern science and the features of various collaborations that occur within it.

이 연구에서는 학제간 융합 연구를 수행해본 경험을 가진 과학기술 연구자들이 학제간 협업에 대하여 어떠한 인식을 가지고 있으며 협업과정에서 경험하는 어려움 및 그 어려움을 극복하고자 세우는 전략들에는 어떠한 유형이 있는지 확인하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 학제간 협업에 대한 태도를 확인하는 5점 리커트 척도 문항들과 협업 경험에서 겪는 어려움 및 어려움 극복전략에 관해 서술하는 개방형 문항들이 혼합된 형태의 설문지를 개발하여 국내 과학기술 연구자 79명에게 투입한 후 자료를 수집하였으며 수집한 자료는 양적·질적으로 분석되었다. 연구결과, 과학기술 연구자들의 협업 태도 하위구인 중 협업의 효능감 인식이 협업의 의도에 중요한 영향을 미치는 것으로 확인되었으나 협업의 효능감 대한 연구참여자들의 인식 수준은 비교적 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 또한 학제간 협업과정에서 겪는 어려움은 4가지 유형(가치지향 상충, 사고방식 차이, 용어나 개념 차이, 상대분야에 대한 편견과 상호 몰이해)으로 나타났으며 이를 극복하기 위한 전략은 7가지 유형(협상과 타협을 통한 상호 양보, 공통의 언어나 매개물의 설정과 유지, 명확한 역할의 분담, 지속적인 만남과 토의, 용어의 의미조율과 모델과 가정에 대한 사전 규정, 상대 분야에 대한 있는 그대로의 인정, 타자에 대한 배려와 관심)으로 확인되었다. 이와 같은 연구 결과를 바탕으로 현대 과학의 주요한 본성인 다원주의적 특성과 그 안에서 이루어지는 다양한 협업의 특성을 반영하는 융합교육이 이루어져야 함을 제언하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2017년 정부(교육부)와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2017R1D1A1B03035881).

References

  1. Ahn, H. Y. (2012). The Biologism within consilience: How physics makes an effect on the shape of biology. Korean Journal of General Education, 6(3), 691-719.
  2. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J. F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The Moral Machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
  3. Bak, H. J. (2007). Perceptions and evaluation of norms of science among Korean scientific community. Journal of Science & Tecnology Studies, 7(2), 91-124.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  6. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
  7. Bochatay, N., Bajwa, N. M., Blondan, K. S., Perron, N. J., Cullati, S., & Nendaz, M. R. (2019). Exploring group boundaries and conflicts: a social identity theory perspective. Medical Education, 53(8), 799-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13881
  8. Bueno, O. (2011). When physics and biology meet: The nanoscale case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42, 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.025
  9. Bueno, O. (2012). Styles of reasoning: A pluralist view. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 43, 657-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.008
  10. Chang, H. (2014). Pluralism as a new Framework for integrated HPS. Korean Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 17(2), 153-173.
  11. Cho, Y., Woo, C., & Choi, J. (2017). Performance analysis on collaborative activities of multidisciplinary research in government research Institutes. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 20(4), 1089-1121.
  12. Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kinds of knowledge. Phenomenology and cognitive Science, 3, 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a
  13. Collins, H. (2011). Language and practice. Social Studies of Science, 41(2), 271-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711399665
  14. Collins, H., Evans, R., Gorman, M (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38, 657-666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  16. Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition (3 volumes). London: Duckworth.
  17. Dorner, D., & Funke, J. (2017). Complex problem solving: What it is and what it is not. Frontiers in Psychology 8(1153), 1-11.
  18. Funke, J. (2012). Complex problem solving. N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (682-685). Heidelberg: Springer.
  19. Fuselier, L., MacFadden, J., & King, K. R. (2019). Do biologists' conceptions of science as a social epistemology align with critical contextual empiricism?. Science & Education, 28(9). 1001-1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00084-8
  20. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  21. Gorman, M. E. (2002). Level of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32(5/6). 933-938. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631270203200511
  22. Gorman, M. E., Groves, F., & Shrager, J. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology as a trading zone: results from a pilot project. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, & J. Schummer (Eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
  23. Hacking, I. (1985). Styles of scientific thinking. In J. Rajchman & C. West (Eds.), Postanalytic philosophy (pp. 145-165). New York: Columbia University Press.
  24. Han, K. (2016). Convergence, consilience and reduction. The Journal of Human Studies, 41, 173-194.
  25. Humphreys, P. (2018). Knowledge transfer across scientific disciplines. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
  26. Jung, S. M. (2001). Molecular Biology and Incommensurability. Korean Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 1-31.
  27. Kim, A. Y., & Sinatra, G. M. (2018). Science identity development: an interactionist approach. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(51), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0097-9
  28. Kim, B. G. (2017). Deciphering the Genetic Code in the RNA Tie Club: Observations on Multidisciplinary Research and a Common Research Agenda. Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 17(1), 72-115.
  29. Kim, E., & Lee, S. (2018a). Application and selection status of National Research Fund of Korea(NRF)'s interdisciplinary convergent research project and implication for convergence researcher. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 8(3), 499-510.
  30. Kim, E., & Lee, S. (2018b). The experiences and satisfaction of researchers supported by the Interdisciplinary research projects. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 8(1), 33-50.
  31. Kim, E., Lee, S., & Song, J. Y. (2018). The Influence of the Positive and Negative Experiences of the Convergent Researchers on the Retry Intention, Satisfaction, Continuing Intention, and Recommendation Intention of Convergent Research. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 8(5), 279-291.
  32. Kim, H. J., Kim, E. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2018). Successful convergent research method to overcome trial and error of interdisciplinary convergent researcher. Culture and Convergence, 40(1), 183-214.
  33. Kim, H. S. (2011). Beyond both biological and sociological reductionism. Kookmin Social Science Reviews, 23(2), 143-173.
  34. Kim, H. S. (2012). Climate change, science and community. Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 268-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511421711
  35. Kim, M. (2017). Understanding children's science identity through classroom interactions. International Journal of Science Education, 40(1), 24-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1395925
  36. Kim, S. R. (2020). Ethical and legal difficulties and solutions that need to be solved before autonomous vehicles are commercialized - Focused on ethical guidelines and moral machine experiments. IT & Law Review, 21, 171-214.
  37. Kuhn, S. T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  38. Lee, G. (2022). Exploring the essence of 'science content' and 'science education': Focus on 'essential-holistic' perspective and practices. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 42(4), 449-474.
  39. Lee, J. K., Hwang, H., & Shin, S. (2022). Diversity of implicit premise in different academic major group: Focusing on the case of pre-service science teachers' arguments on race concept. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 5-38.
  40. Lee, J. K., Lee, T. K., & Ha, M. (2013). Exploring the evolution patterns of trading zones appearing in the convergence of teachers' ideas: The case study of a learning community of teaching volunteers 'STEAM teacher community'. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(5), 1055-1086. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.5.1055
  41. Lee, J. K., Shin, S., & Ha, M. (2015). Comparing the Structure of Secondary School Students' Perception of the Meaning of 'Experiment' in Science and Biology. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(6), 997-1006. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2015.35.6.0997
  42. Lee, J. K., Shin, S., & Ha, M. (2018). Complex problems in complex problem solving: Types, levels, and meaning in the filed of science education. School Science Journal, 12(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.4.201812.417
  43. Lee, J. K., Shin, S., & Ha, M. (2020). Pre-service teachers' perception of the complexity, difficulty, interesting, and willingness to problem solving during complex problem solving: Focusing on real-life contextual cases. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 20(19), 241-269.
  44. Lee, J. W. (2022). Effect of theme-based convergence education program using bio-art on bioethical awareness and scientific attitude of high school students. School Science Journal, 12(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.15737/SSJ.12.4.201812.417
  45. Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton's scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y
  46. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press.
  47. Ministry of Education (2022). 2022 revised science curriculum. Ministry of Education 2022-33 [issue 9].
  48. Moon, J. (2020). Making a linguistic connection for interdisciplinary research between conservation science and ceramic history: The case of "Analytical report of the royal kiln complex at Gwangju in Gyeonggi province". Journal of Conservation Science, 36(6), 578-590. https://doi.org/10.12654/JCS.2020.36.6.13
  49. Ng. T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
  50. Noh, Y., & Park, J. (2021). A study on the trend analysis of interdisciplinary convergence research. The Journal of Humanities and Social science, 12(1), 3359-3374.
  51. Oh, H., & sung, E. (2013). Competency Modeling of Convergence Talent. Asian Journal of Education, 14(4), 201-228. https://doi.org/10.15753/AJE.2013.14.4.009
  52. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
  53. Park, M. (2015). The AIP and the conflict between pure physicists and applied physicists. The Korean Journal for the History of Science, 37(1), 41-58.
  54. Park, S. U. (2015). A dynamic modeling of the system of sciences. Journal of Humanities, 45, 297-316.
  55. Park, W., & Song, J. (2019). Between realism and constructivism: A sketch of pluralism for science education. In E. Herring, K. Jones, K. Kiprijanov, & L. Sellers (Eds.), The past, present and future of integrated history and philosophy of science (pp. 228-247). London: Routledge.
  56. Park, Y., Park, J. Y., Kim, J., Won, Y. H. (2020). The patterns of scientific collaboration in the field of climate change: the analysis of a co-authorship network and the role of brokers. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 23(1), 162-180. https://doi.org/10.35978/jktis.2020.2.23.1.162
  57. Radder H. (2009). The philosophy of scientific experimentation: a review. Automated Experimentation, 1, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-4499-1-2
  58. Rozin, P. (2005). The Meaning of "Natural": Process More Important Than Content. Psychological Science, 16(8), 652-658. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x
  59. Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation," In: Ryan, R.M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation, New York Oxford University Press, pp. 11-26.
  60. Seo, D. I., & Oh, H. (2014). A Study of the Interchanging Experiences at the Trading Zone: Focusing on the Case of Interdisciplinary Researchers. Asian Journal of Education, 15(2), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.15753/AJE.2014.15.2.005
  61. Shin, S. C. (2011). Border language and singularity production: The application of Guattari's polysemiotic framework.
  62. Shin, S., Ha, M., Lee, J. K., Park, H. J., Chung, D. H., & Lim, J. K. (2014). The development and validation of instrument for measuring high school students' attitude toward convergence. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(2), 123-134.
  63. Song, Y., & Paik, S. H. (2020). Exploring the Research Trend Changes on Convergence Education of Before and After 2011 in Science Education. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 40(5), 531-542. https://doi.org/10.14697/JKASE.2020.40.5.531
  64. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In M. Huhns & L. Glasser (Eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
  65. Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
  66. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations', and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals on Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
  67. Stephens, N., Kahn, I., & Errington, R. (2018). Analysing the role of virtualisation and visualisation in interdisciplinary knowledge exchange in stem cell research processes. Palgrave Communications, 4(78), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0055-7
  68. Stephenson, J. (2017). What does energy mean? An interdisciplinary conversation. Energy Research & Social Science, 26, 103-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.014
  69. Vincent-Ruz, P, & Schunn, C. D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(48), 1-12.
  70. Vorms, M. (2014). The birth of classical genetics as the junction of two disciplines: Conceptual change as representational change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 48, 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.05.007
  71. Wong, S., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse's mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431-1463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903104465
  72. You, H. S., Marshall, J. A., & Delgado, C. (2017). Assessing students' disciplinary and interdisciplinary understanding of global carbon cycling. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55 (3), 377-398.
  73. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.