2. MARCO TEÓRICO
2.7 BIOENSAYOS CON SEMILLA DE LECHUGA
5.4.1 Age Profile of IDR Teams
The age composition (Table 5.2) of FTI teams indicates that only WUA team had an overwhelming majority (5 out of 7 below 30 years) of young members and no team member was above 45. CA and AL teams had a mix of younger and older generations and the SA team had no members below the age of 30. The team leaders in WUA, CA and SA teams were in their thirties, while that of AL was in his mid forties, a senior scientist from a collaborating organization.
Table 5.2 The Age Composition of FTI Teams
Age in completed years FTI-Group Total
WUA CA AL SA Team Members 20-30 5 1 2 0 8 31-45 1 3 2 1 7 46+ 0 1 0 1 2 Team Leader 37 35 57 35 4 Total Members 7 6 5 3 21
Source: FTI Member Profile Survey (August 2008) 5.4.2 Experience Profile of IDR Teams
The majority of members in SA, AL, CA teams had more than five years of professional experience (Table 5.3) in their respective fields, whereas majority of the WUA team members had an experience of less than five years. The team leaders of WUA and AL teams were relatively well experienced (above ten years of professional experience) compared to those of CA and SA teams, who had an experience of seven and six years respectively. The SA and WUA team leaders had experience of working at more than one organizations, but the CA and AL team leaders had only worked for the same organizations.
Table 5.3 Experience profile of FTI Teams Experience of Team Members
(years)
FTI-Group & No of Team Members
WUA CA AL SA Total Experience in years 0-5 5 1 1 0 7 5-10 1 3 2 0 6 >10 0 1 1 2 4 Team Leader 11 7 29 6 4 Total Members 7 6 5 3 21
Source: FTI Member Profile Survey (August 2008)
The age and experience composition of FTI team members indicate that the members of each of the above teams, apart from the CA team, had considerable differences in maturity and life experiences. Individual team members in each of these groups, therefore, had different motivations for learning, and required different approaches to learning. Relatively mature members could benefit more from training methods of adult learning, as they draw their learning motivation from inside (Knowles, 1989; Knowles, 1990), compared to younger members who draw their learning motivation from outside, and needed different techniques for induced learning. The junior research team members, Ph.D./ MS students and research assistants, were all Uzbek nationals, except two Ph.D. students engaged in WUA team. The Uzbek nationals generally are respectful to their work and study supervisors, and questioning supervisor’s views is considered culturally inappropriate (Hornidge, et. al., 2009). One implication of such age and experience differences within the teams, therefore was, that special efforts were needed from the team leaders to mobilize the local knowledge of younger members within these teams while undertaking IDR. Most team leaders were, however, not much exposed to needed facilitation skills, as was to be discovered later during the process. The leadership and facilitation skills of team leaders and senior management, especially tactfulness in conflict resolution and the ability to encourage cooperation among team members have been found as important assets for successful IDR teams (Stokols, et al., 2008), which were only available with WUA team out of the four teams.
5.4.3. Epistemic Profile
The perceptions of team members regarding the role of science and scientists (Table 5.4), categorized along agreement and disagreement to specific statements, indicated that a vast majority of the team members disagreed with propositions that scientists should only undertake science for publishing, or solving scientific problems of their disciplines alone. This indicates that most of the participants believed that science should address actual societal problems and find practical solutions to those problems. All of the FTI team members agreed that carrying out interdisciplinary research was the way to understand the societal problems and to come up with workable solutions. A small minority who differed comprised research assistants, who were not much exposed to science and the ways in which science is generally conducted. The FTI members strongly believed in science for resolving societal problems, and undertaking IDR as a scientific pathway to address those problems.
Table 5.4 Perceptions about role of science
Statement Strongly disagree, disagree, disagree more than agree (%) Strongly agree, agree, agree more than disagree (%) No. of respondents (%) The most important role of the scientists is to do
research and publish high quality research articles 20 (80%) 4 (20%) 24 (100%) Scientists should focus on solving scientific problems
of their disciplines only 15 (63%) 9 (37%) 24 (100%)
If scientists from all relevant disciplines work together as a team, they will come up with more real situation assessment, and workable realistic solution
0 (0%) 24 (100%) 24 (100%)
Source: FTI Perception Survey, August 2008
The team epistemologies on their specific disciplines and relative importance of natural, economic and social science disciplines in solving problems facing agriculture in Khorezm (Table 5.5) indicated that almost two-thirds of the survey respondents (62%) regarded their own discipline capable of finding the ‘best’ solutions for resolving agricultural problems. Almost six in ten respondents (58%) disagreed that the lack of availability of technological solutions was the major issue for Khorezmian agriculture. Over two thirds of the respondents agreed that there was no need for newer technologies,
rather the need to work on social and institutional issues. An overwhelming majority (80% and 96% respectively) agreed that technical solutions provided only a part of the solution side of the equation, and that the most important issues were rather those related to social, institutional and political systems.
Table 5.5 Member Perceptions on their disciplines and relative importance of technological and socio-political solutions
Statement Strongly disagree, disagree, disagree more than agree (%) Strongly agree, agree, agree more than disagree (%) No. of respondents (%)
My field of training finds solutions that are the
best for resolving agricultural problems 9 (38%) 15 (62%) 24 (100%) The major problems of rural areas of Khorezm
are due to non-availability of technical solutions and technologies
14 (58%) 10 (42%) 24 (100%)
Technical solutions for Khorezm already exist, but social and institutional system needs to be changed to make these solutions work
8 (33%) 16 (67%) 24 (100%)
Technical solutions and technologies are only one part of the solutions to the problems of Khorezmian rural areas
5 (21%) 19 (79%) 24 (100%)
Social, economic, and political issues are the most
important issues to improve Khorezm agriculture 1 (4%) 23 (96%) 24 (100%) Source: FTI Perception Survey, August 2008
Overall, it appears from the above two tables that a vast majority of the respondents was already aware of the limitations of disciplinary research in resolving real societal problems. This could be partly attributed to the learning from FTI training I, which was further enriched by discussions at training II (Chapter 4). However, not all respondents of the survey had attended the first two training events, where concepts of interdisciplinary research and its potentials were discussed comparing it to those of disciplinary research. One possible explanation could be that some of the respondents gave socially desirable answers, as they were engaged in FTI related interdisciplinary research themselves. This appears to be a plausible explanation considering that almost two-thirds of the survey respondents (62%) at the same time regarded their own discipline capable of finding the ‘best’ solutions for resolving agricultural problems in Khorezm (Table 5.5).
This has important implications for methodology deployed in studying interdisciplinary research during its action phases. Since the self-reporting survey included separate sections on respondent’s perceptions on role of science for society and their views on their own disciplines, it could reveal conflicts in what the participants expected from science in general, and how their own discipline was embedded in the overall context of science. Therefore, separation of questions about respondent’s views on desirability of IDR and on the validity of their own disciplinary specialization need to be separated and spaced apart in the survey instruments deployed to understand participant epistemologies.