Techniques for overcoming difficult interdisciplinary dialogue in expert panels: lessons for interactional expertise

Interdisciplinary scientific collaborations often face the challenge of incommensurability between disciplines, hindering effective dialogue. Gorman's concept of 'trading zones,' refined by Collins and Evans' work on 'interactional expertise,' provides a framework for understanding how such dialogues become possible. A trading zone involves interaction between scientific communities with distinct languages, with various ideal types depending on the nature of the dialogue and the outcome (e.g., fractionated trading zones, characterized by voluntary dialogue and heterogeneous outcomes). Interactional experts, skilled in mediating between contributory experts from different fields, play a crucial role. Gorman's research agenda highlighted the need for further investigation into best collaborative practices within these zones. This article focuses on fractionated trading zones in the context of policy advice, specifically examining the 'expertise collective' method used in France by INSERM and INRA, where interdisciplinary panels systematically review scientific literature on public issues. The study analyzes the management of five such panels to identify techniques employed by interactional experts to facilitate dialogue and overcome obstacles.

The literature review, conducted using the Scopus database, focused on articles and chapters related to trading zones and interactional expertise. While many studies addressed the taxonomy of trading zones and the acquisition of interactional expertise, research on best collaborative practices remains limited. Existing literature suggests a need for diverse panels, avoiding groupthink and orthodoxies, and achieving balance across disciplines to ensure comprehensive understanding of complex issues. However, the internal and external validity of previous findings vary, with some researchers advocating for universally applicable best practices while others emphasize context-specific factors influencing success.

This study employs a comparative case study approach, analyzing five interdisciplinary expert panels involved in systematic expert reviews commissioned by French ministries. The data collection involved semi-structured interviews with panel managers and panel leads, an online questionnaire for panel members, and analysis of relevant documents (reports, specifications, meeting minutes). The interviews utilized the critical incident technique, focusing on successes and failures in interdisciplinary collaboration. The data was analyzed inductively, identifying challenges encountered and solutions implemented by the panel managers. This multi-method approach aimed to mitigate biases inherent in individual methods.

The study identified two main obstacles encountered by the panels: difficult interdisciplinary dialogue and scientists' reluctance to take public positions due to potential pressure from interest groups. Panel managers employed various techniques to overcome these obstacles. Upstream, careful selection criteria were used, focusing on scientific competence, projected engagement, open-mindedness, and panel diversity in terms of disciplines and schools of thought. Negative past experiences significantly shaped these criteria. Techniques for opening and constructing the debate included structured presentations, sharing declarations of interest, providing analytical frames, and requiring justifications for excluding publications. Closing the debate and securing report approval involved techniques such as moderating discussions, emphasizing evidence-based arguments, peer reviews, involving external authorities, and addressing potential reputational consequences of dissent. The effectiveness of these techniques depended on the managers' knowledge and skills, acquired through experience in trading zones. These skills encompassed scientific knowledge in relevant meta-disciplinary fields, familiarity with bibliographic databases, group facilitation skills, writing and editing capabilities, and project management expertise. Managers' ability to overcome status and gender-based prejudices and gain recognition from panel members was crucial.

The findings contribute to our understanding of interactional expertise, highlighting the importance of diverse panels, structured discussions, evidence-based reasoning, and careful management strategies. The study supports the idea that fostering respectful interactions and addressing superordinate goals (understanding the problem and answering the commissioning body's question) improves collaboration. The emphasis on learning from both successful and unsuccessful experiences nuances the existing literature on best practices, suggesting that a holistic approach encompassing diverse techniques and context-specific factors is essential. The acquisition of interactional expertise is shown not only to occur through immersion in a specific technical field, but also through a trial-and-error process involving reflection on past experiences, both positive and negative.

This research identifies key techniques and skills employed by interactional experts to navigate interdisciplinary dialogue within expert panels. The findings emphasize the importance of careful panel selection, structured debate management, and the role of experience in developing the necessary expertise. Future research could explore the effectiveness of incorporating case studies of failed collaborations into training programs for interactional experts and further investigate the long-term effects of the identified techniques.

The study is limited to five case studies within the French context, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings. The reliance on self-reported data from interviews and questionnaires might introduce biases. The relatively old cases selected (data collected between 2013 and 2016) could limit the relevance of some findings to contemporary practices.