The organizational sciences are rapidly coming together with neuroscience theory and
methods to provide new insights into organizational phenomena (Becker et al., 2011;
Senior et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012), and even the potential development of individuals
within organizations (Waldman et al., 2011). A number of challenges become relevant
in the pursuit of such an amalgamation, but perhaps the most apparent is the inherent
need for interdisciplinary perspectives and research. An overall purpose of this opinion
piece is to clarify the importance of interdisciplinary efforts, while at the same
time clarifying the challenges to be faced if we are to apply neuroscience to organizations.
Scientists are typically trained and reinforced to work in a unidisciplinary, specialized
mode. It really does not matter if we are considering people trained in the so-called
“soft” sciences (e.g., psychology), or whether they come from the “hard” sciences
(e.g., neuroscience). We are largely groomed and later reinforced to be specialists.
I personally was trained in industrial/organizational psychology, a specialized area
of the broader field of psychology. When I was undergoing my graduate education, as
well as in the years that followed, I never dreamed that I would someday be working
with neuroscientists. But it is now happening. In other words, I am conducting interdisciplinary
research involving neuroscientists. In so doing, I certainly do not represent the
norm among my colleagues. I say this as a professor in a management department of
business school. I realize that for many academic psychologists working in psychology
departments, the notion of combining psychology and neuroscience has become the norm.
Accordingly, much of what I will address in this opinion piece would not apply to
them.
I will address three primary questions in this article. First, what are the institutional
and personal impediments that may prevent researchers, especially those in settings
such as my own, from engaging in the type of interdisciplinary research that might
involve neuroscience? Second, what is the myth vs. reality of the obstacles that might
preclude the success of interdisciplinary efforts? Third, what steps can we take to
engage in more interdisciplinary research? By addressing these questions, I hope to
provide some insight into the issues and benefits of an interdisciplinary approach
to neuroscience research. Most of my approach is framed through the perspective of
an organizational researcher such as myself, although I conclude with some consideration
of why neuroscientists might want to pursue interdisciplinary research that reaches
out to the organizational sciences.
Institutional and personal impediments
I first attempted to apply neuroscience to my own area of specialized expertise, leadership
in organizations, around 2005. Early on, I made a presentation on the subject and
described some recent data collection efforts to my colleagues at Arizona State University.
After the presentation was over, one of my colleagues took me aside and said that
what I was attempting to do was quite interesting. He also acknowledged that he had
never conceived of such possibilities, largely because of the institutional context
in which we exist (about which I will say more below). A second colleague who pulled
me aside was more cautionary. He essentially acknowledged that what I was doing was
innovative, but recommended, “don't quit your day job.” In other words, the not-so-subtle
message was that such interdisciplinary efforts would not end up being rewarded, and
I should just stick with the tried and true of unidisciplinary or specialized research
activities. Was he correct?
Before answering that question, let's consider how interdisciplinary research can
exist at different levels or degrees. As a management professor specializing in micro-level,
organizational behavior, let's assume that I want to be more interdisciplinary in
my work. I could potentially work on research projects that integrate more macro-level
phenomena. Indeed, over the past 20 years I have written on such topics as strategic
leadership (e.g., Waldman et al., 2001), corporate social responsibility (e.g., Waldman
et al., 2006), and university technology transfer (Siegel et al., 2003). My interdisciplinary
work in these areas has brought me together with strategic management and information
systems researchers, economists, and financial researchers. The common denominator,
however, is that all of this work, and the individuals associated with it, can be
placed under the broad umbrella of business-based research. By engaging in interdisciplinary
research involving neuroscience, one is “taking a walk on the wild side,” so to speak,
and perhaps this is what my colleague was thinking about when he cautioned me to “don't
quit your day job.”
So what exactly are the institutional impediments all about? Many of us conduct our
research within the institutional confines of universities and research outlets, specifically
journals. Historically, the structure of universities is very segmented or siloed.
Even the physical buildings in which our offices are housed tend to maintain this
segmentation, e.g., offices for people in a particular department or disciplinary
area are largely in the same location. Perhaps more importantly, our reward systems
(e.g., promotion and tenure) tend to reinforce specialization. As an organizational
researcher, I have received messages (some subtle, some not so subtle) throughout
my career that while some dabbling in other areas might be permissible, I should not
stray too far or too much from my own specialization, or else my own tenure, promotion,
and reputation could be put at risk. Moreover and relatedly, I have been told that
the best journals will not accept highly interdisciplinary research. Below I will
attempt to separate the myth from reality with regard to publication issues.
Most of us are keenly aware of the structural or institutional impediments to interdisciplinary
research. But perhaps we are not so cognizant of our own personal issues that might
preclude us from engaging in such research. We are conditioned early on as graduate
students to work on specialized projects. After graduation, we are then encouraged
to gradually make a name for ourselves in particular, focused streams of research.
Rarely does the thought of interdisciplinary activities take hold. Indeed, the networks
that we form, conferences that we attend, and so forth, center around unidisciplinary
work. In short, we can get by just fine in our careers without becoming interdisciplinary.
So why bother?
Separating myth from reality
Before I provide my take on this question, I first want to separate some myth from
reality. The first myth is that researchers from widely disparate disciplines either
cannot, or will not, come together to pursue interdisciplinary efforts. As an organizational
behaviorist, I will admit to having mixed luck with regard to collaborative relationships
with neuroscientists. At times, it has been challenging because of differing goals,
perspectives, and the reality that some neuroscientists themselves may not be interested
in the pursuit of interdisciplinary research.
But for the most part, I have been able to form beneficial connections with such individuals,
and together we have attempted to dispel a second myth. Specifically, there is the
myth that top journals in organizational/management will not accept interdisciplinary
research, especially when it crosses such a seemingly huge boundary as the neuroscience
realm. This myth personifies the fear that my colleague mentioned back in 2005 when
he cautioned me to not quit my day job. The fear was that I simply would not be able
to place such research in the top journals in my field. To be sure, at the time, there
were no neuroscience-based articles in organizational/management journals. So his
conclusion might seem warranted. In addition, interdisciplinary submissions can create
difficulties for journal editors, for example, finding suitable reviewers. However,
the more entrepreneurially-oriented editors of journals in my field increasingly see
the potential value in accepting at least some interdisciplinary articles, including
those involving neuroscience concepts and methods. In speaking with editors of journals
in my field, they seem keenly aware of how neuroscience is affecting other fields
in business. Examples include neuro-economics (e.g., Braeutigam, 2005; Camerer et
al., 2005; Kenning and Plassman, 2005) and neuro-marketing (e.g., Lee et al., 2007).
So inclusion of neuroscience-based articles is rapidly being viewed as more normal,
and less revolutionary. Since 2005, I personally have been able to achieve a least
a modicum of success in such publication efforts, largely involving neuroscientists
as co-authors (Peterson et al., 2008; Balthazard et al., 2012; Hannah et al., 2013;
Waldman et al., 2013). Moreover, it is my experience that grant agencies and foundations
increasingly seek interdisciplinary research proposals that involve co-investigators
from diverse backgrounds.
Steps toward becoming more interdisciplinary
The type of interdisciplinary research that I have described here can be framed in
terms of the classic approach-avoidance conflict. To a large extent, I have emphasized
the salience of the approach aspects that might make a researcher want to proceed
with interdisciplinary work, while minimizing potential avoidance reasons for shunning
pursuits of this nature. With that said, I fully realize that a key consideration
on the avoidance side is the ambiguity inherent in determining when or how to make
it happen. In other words, when and how might one become more interdisciplinary in
his/her approach to research, especially with regard to combining neuroscience with
fields of study such as the organizational sciences? For individuals whose primary
focus is the latter, the first thing that I would caution is to treat the potential
integration of neuroscience as more of a personal vision, rather than predominant
reality, early on in one's career. In other words, as a doctoral student and in the
early portion of one's career, it might be best to focus largely on developing a focused
specialization, while at the same time keeping in mind and gradually working toward
interdisciplinary possibilities.
Once one has determined to become more interdisciplinary, there are two avenues that
might be pursued. First, an individual can simply expand his or her own domain of
expertise to include an area such as neuroscience. The obvious limitation of this
approach is that we all have time constraints, as well as demands to maintain expertise
in our own specialized areas. To some degree, I personally have followed this route.
But because of the sheer breadth and complexity of neuroscience, I have chosen a second
avenue for approaching neuroscience. Specifically, I have partnered with trained neuroscientists
in terms of both publication and grant activities. Indeed, I have found this second
avenue to be especially important as a means of providing a better perspective of
neuroscience, and to deal with the complexities of actual data collection and analysis
processes (e.g., Balthazard et al., 2012). For example, through collaboration with
neuroscientists, I have gained a better feel for what “activity” in brain regions
may operationally be all about, as well as the potential relevance of both intrinsic
and reflexive brain activity to organizational phenomena (Waldman et al., 2013).
Concluding thoughts
Throughout this opinion piece, I have focused on interdisciplinary work from the viewpoint
of a non-neuroscientist, such as myself. But what about neuroscientists; what might
be their motivation to work with organizational researchers? In my own experience,
I have had much more success at connecting with neuroscientists who combine the scientist-practitioner
model, including establishing their own firms to produce applications to such maladies
as attention deficit disorder, sleep apnea, and so forth. These individuals have bonafide
credentials in terms of their basic understanding of neuroscience theory and methods,
but they are also interested in real-world applications. Thus, it is a natural extension
of their work to look toward the organizational world to see how their expertise might
be applied. In contrast, I have had less luck connecting with “pure” academics, for
example, social cognitive neuroscientists who might be working in psychology departments
of universities. However, I recognize that there will be more such connections between
organizational researchers and basic neuroscience researchers in the future.
In conclusion, it is my hope that this commentary will help to provide some insights
into the issues and advantages pertaining to interdisciplinary research in the realm
of organizations and neuroscience. There is much potential for research of this nature
to address some of the larger problems facing organizations. In turn, by focusing
attention on organizational issues, new insights and opportunities may present themselves
for neuroscientists.