“How did your involvement in a research network impact on your research?”

The answer to a very good question from a committee member in my thesis pre-defence, which I passed (phew).

This blog post is prompted by a question on my interdisciplinary work environment that I was asked in my thesis pre-defence.  My committee gave me some nice things to think over.  In particular, I was asked about my involvement in a wider research network during the PhD research; the AquaTRAIN network consisted of 15 PhD and post-doc researchers in 15 European institutions, researching every aspect of the problem of naturally-occurring arsenic in groundwater.  I was the official social scientist amongst 14 epidemiologists, geochemists and biochemists and my role in the network was to look at policy implications of research findings.  The PhD topic that I created was to explain non-implementation of EU policies relating to the control of health impacts from arsenic in groundwater.  The main question raised at my pre-defence in relation to the network was over how I thought being a member had impacted upon my research. I have given it some thought, and this blog post presents my answer.

Working in a network has provided me with access to a wealth of knowledge and expertise.  I learned about dose-response curves in epidemiology; biomarkers of arsenic exposure; environmental controls on arsenic mobility in soils; and much more besides.  In short, if I needed to find out any information about the source, pathway and exposure components of the problem of geogenic arsenic in groundwater, I had access to people who knew and were willing to tell (or give me a paper to read).  In this way, the network contributed to providing the foundation knowledge I needed to access different disciplines.

The network also provided me with the opportunity to think critically about the knowledge I was accessing. I had opportunities to observe the working processes of peers in other fields, and therefore gained insight into how knowledge is constructed in their discipline. Through joint workshops, I even did some water sampling, learned about soil analysis, did some GIS analysis and chemical modeling. By understanding the construction processes, I can better understand the strengths and limitations in results, how they fit together and barriers to integration.  In this way, the network contributed to the skills I needed to integrate different disciplines.

My communication skills were often tested through my involvement in the network.  I gave conference presentations on my own work to an audience comprising physical scientists. I found that if I pitched it too hard, and used language from my discipline, no-one understood what I was trying to say.  But if I pitched it too easy, they considered that it wasn’t academic work and it was harder to convince them that it was worth listening.  On a more local scale, this dilemma existed in discussions within the network; I found I was tailoring my language or presenting my points using concepts or comparisons with the physical disciplines in order to be understood.  Being understood while maintaining academic respect was essential in shaping research output, discussing points and in having other people understand how my work fitted into theirs. I am not saying that I am perfect at such communication (I’ll recount horror stories one day), but in providing me with practice, the network has contributed to my ability to use my acquired skills and knowledge in order to implement and disseminate research.

So to answer the original question of how the network impacted upon my research, the answer is that it became integral to the research.  The findings of my thesis highlight that non-implementation of policies is caused by failings in the causal theories and the administration of policies, and that these occur at multiple points in the governance system.  Reaching these findings was only possible because of the big-picture, holistic approach that I took in my research.  I studied the entire governance system including all policy actors, the written policies, the outcomes they prompted and their justification.   I could not have taken this approach if I had not been able to engage with, and draw on, the diverse range of physical science that is incorporated into water policies.  Therefore, while the research itself was independent and had a methodology which stands alone, my ability to design and execute it was vastly enriched by my involvement within the interdisciplinary network.  With this answer in mind, I tweaked my thesis conclusions a little; in the section where I discuss future requirements in implementation research, I also argue for a problem-focussed network approach as a way of meeting these requirements.