Large research teams and consortia present challenges for authorship. The number of disciplines involved in the research can further complicate approaches to manuscript development and leadership. The CHARM team, representing a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional genomics implementation study, participated in facilitated discussions inspired by team science methodologies. The discussions were centered on team members’ past experiences with authorship and perspectives on authorship in a large research team context. Team members identified challenges and opportunities that were used to create guidelines and administrative tools to support manuscript development. The guidelines were organized by the three values of equity, inclusion, and efficiency and included eight principles. A visual dashboard was created to allow all team members to see who was leading or involved in each paper. Additional tools to promote equity, inclusion, and efficiency included providing standardized project management for each manuscript and making “concept sheets” for each manuscript accessible to all team members. The process used in CHARM can be used by other large research teams and consortia to equitably distribute lead authorship opportunities, foster coauthor inclusion, and efficiently work with large authorship groups.

Many countries are reconfiguring their emergency care systems to improve quality and efficiency of care, and this often includes the concentration of emergency departments (EDs). This trend is evident in the Netherlands, but the best approach is the subject of debate among stakeholders. We (i) examined the views of stakeholders on the concentration of EDs in the Netherlands and (ii) identified the main conflicting interests and trade-offs that are relevant for health policy. To do this, we organised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with emergency care professionals, hospital executives and selected external stakeholders. First, the participants saw both advantages and disadvantages to concentration, but these were also contested and debated. Second, we found that – sometimes conflicting – public health care goals (i.e. quality, accessibility and affordability) and narrower interests (e.g. the interests of specific hospitals, insurers, medical specialists and local administrators) were both pointed out. Third, there was no clear preferred approach to the future organisation of EDs, although most stakeholders mentioned some form of centralised decision-making at the national level, combined with regional customisation. Our findings will facilitate health policy decision-making around the reconfiguration of emergency care with the long-term goal of achieving efficient and high-quality emergency care.

In the fields of agriculture and resource economics, good economics is predicated by good science. By partnering more with physical scientists, economists will be better able to provide the broad policy-making community with practical recommendations for addressing resource issues. An example of collaboration is presented for the development of environmental indicators of the potential risk to the environment of die loss of pesticides from farm fields, which will be used by economists to adjust conventionally measured agricultural output for water quality impacts associated with agricultural production.

We detail the rewards and barriers to participating in multidisciplinary research (MDR) using a 2011 survey of applied economists at U.S. universities. We compare these findings with an earlier 1993 survey to assess if rewards and barriers have changed over time. Different administrative levels of U.S. universities are sending contradictory signals regarding rewards from MDR. External funding agencies convey positive signals. Although the scope and breadth of questions addressed by applied economists are changing over time, institutional incentives and reward structures are not keeping pace with these changes. Progress toward adapting to new professional demands has been slow.

The aim of this study was to develop a methodology to assess the degree of multidisciplinarity and international co-operation between scientists working on Deception Island, using techniques based on social network analysis. A database was built of the scientific output, as represented by published articles, on Deception Island between 1964–2012. From the 173 published articles, the main topics, the temporal trends, the profile of the principal journals, and the contributions made by each country, research institution and scientist were obtained. The data presented show a significant role played by four of the six nations belonging to the Deception Island Management Group. However, collaborations between researchers in different fields was unusual and co-authoring by researchers from different countries was relatively low. These results show that there is a need to strengthen international co-operation, a highly advisable strategy in Antarctica due to the complexity of logistics and high operational costs. Studies such as this may help to identify synergies between institutions and researchers from different nations, improving the scientific collaboration in this area of priority for conservation and management.

The development of a high-quality primary healthcare system requires multidisciplinary perspectives and collaborations between clinicians and non-clinicians. Academic primary care departments across the United Kingdom and Ireland employ academics from a range of disciplines. However, questions remain about the parity of opportunity for career progression with a consistent trend to focus more on clinicians than non-clinicians. In this paper, we analyse the employment and careers of non-clinical primary care academics working in Ireland and Scotland. We draw on survey data from the island of Ireland and conference workshop discussions among Irish- and Scottish-based academics. We highlight problems with career progression and identify some strategic actions. We argue for a renewed attempt to ensure that all academics who are contributing to the discipline of primary care are appropriately acknowledged and supported to continue their endeavours to develop high-quality primary care health systems.

Organic farming is one of the fastest growing agricultural sectors worldwide, and funds to support research and extension activities that address the needs of organic producers are becoming more widely available in the USA. Solutions to problems in ecologically complex systems, such as organic farming systems often exceed the expertise of individual investigators or single disciplines. Further, the complex nature of ecological and social interactions within systems-based agricultural research requires not only more emphasis on information exchange but also synthesis between multidisciplinary teams of academic researchers and organic farmers. Accordingly, federal grant agencies that support organic agriculture research increasingly require that projects encompass multiple academic disciplines, multiple functions (research, outreach, education), and the participation of stakeholders for the ultimate purpose of the integration of knowledge. Many researchers, educators and administrators at land grant universities (LGUs) remain inexperienced in multidisciplinary, multifunctional and participatory research. Using post-completion project interviews of the project investigators on an organic transition project, we identified eight factors that affected the integration of knowledge from a farmer advisory board and the conduct of our multidisciplinary, participatory organic transition project. The first five factors include shared values, balance in technical competence, institutional capacity for research, team capacity for problem solving and institutional resistance. The research team also identified three other factors that evoked confusion and divergence during the project, and include the ambiguity of power and control of knowledge, the proposed experimental plan and terms of team engagement. We considered participatory elements of the project according to Biggs’ linear typology of participation, but found more appropriate Neef and Neubert's position that a linear scale of participatory approach is an inadequate framework for helping agricultural scientists to decide on whether and in which phases they want to, can and should incorporate participatory elements into their research projects. From these findings, we conclude with critical issues for academic research and extension teams to consider during the development and before conduct of these types of projects. We also offer recommendations for LGUs and other research institutions, and funding organizations, to facilitate multidisciplinary, multifunctional, participatory research.

Soil quality has been proposed as a prime indicator for characterizing and defining management factors contributing to soil degradation. In this study, biological (soil respiration, fluorescent Pseudomonas bacteria and entomopathogenic nematode populations), chemical (pH, inorganic N, and total C & N), and physical (bulk density and infiltration) indicators were used to determine soil quality. The specific research objective was to determine the capacity of this specific set of indicators to assess soil quality and determine its ability to detect short-term changes in soil conditions and processes. The assessment was comparative because of the lack of specific criteria or guidelines available in the literature for interpretation of most soil property indices measured. The following treatments were chosen from an ongoing farming systems study to achieve a preplanned set of comparisons that would make this type of assessment possible: (1) best management practices/conventional tillage (BMP/CT), (2) BMP/no-tillage (BMP/NT), (3) an organic system, and (4) a successional fallow system. Assessments were made multiple times between 1999 and 2000. Statistical differences between systems were found for all soil quality indicators except for entomopathogenic nematodes. Differences between systems varied across dates, a result that supports other research stating the need to consider the temporal variability of these indices for an unbiased overall soil quality assessment. Differences in total carbon and total nitrogen between systems were most evident in the 2000 sampling dates with BMP/NT showing greater contents on the last sampling date. The soil pH and inorganic N results did not suggest a possible difference in soil function status between any of the three agricultural systems studied. All three agricultural systems, BMP/NT, BMP/CT and organic, had similar pH values and overall low soil inorganic N levels. The non-agricultural successional system had a slightly more acidic soil condition than the three agricultural systems. Soil bulk density increased with time in the untilled BMP/NT and successional systems but the resulting values were not considered detrimental to either productivity or environmental quality. Infiltration was lower in the BMP/NT and successional systems than in the BMP/CT and organic systems. In conclusion, all soil quality indicators except for entomopathogenic nematodes proved to be sensitive to the detection of rapid changes in soil conditions that occur by the influence of soil management. The importance of using soil bulk density to express soil results on a volume basis, as the soil exists in the field before sampling, prevented an average interpretation error of 7–14% as compared to treatment comparisons on a soil weight basis only. This also demonstrates the need to carefully consider field sampling locations (row, between row, or wheel traffic areas) which dramatically influence soil density, physical characteristics, organic matter concentrations, and biological activity. Failure to consider these factors can invalidate even the most careful approaches to establishing baseline soil quality levels in the field as affected by various tillage and residue management practices and associated comparisons in time.

Primary care policy and practice in Northern Ireland is unique for two main reasons: unlike elsewhere, Northern Ireland has an integrated health and social services system and the primary care reforms witnessed in many countries have not, as yet, taken place in Northern Ireland. This paper is based on a study in Northern Ireland that aimed to review the role and function of community nursing with reference to new developments in practice, education, research and policy. Service commissioning was one of many areas explored within the study and is the main focus of this paper. The study commenced with focus groups of community nurses (n = 38), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 14) and public representatives (n = 8). This was followed by a two stage Delphi investigation using self-report questionnaires. In addition, data from 34 senior policy makers were collected using semi-structured interviews. The research was primarily carried out in Northern Ireland but involved GPs, community nurses and members of the public from the Republic of Ireland. Findings from all these data sources suggest that there is a perception that community nurses do not have the skills to take a lead role in the commissioning of services, that they require intensive training to take on such roles, and those who do should have equal remuneration with GPs who are involved in service commissioning. Recommendations are offered in the form of action points to guide future practice and policy.

In this paper we attempt to explore the meaning, understanding, usefulness and reality of multidisciplinary research in primary care and provide examples. We debate the issues around roles of people in multidisciplinary research, the value of such research and its application to patient care. We also discuss the perceived threats and opportunities to multidisciplinary research, possible reasons for such perceptions, funding, and research governance, education and training issues. We then go on to consider the emerging relationship between primary care organizations (PCOs) and primary care research teams. We specifically address the activities of research general practices and their implications in terms of contributing to multidisciplinary research and training. We question the traditional model of academic research; raise awareness and need for grassroots primary care research and the importance of capacity building through a multidisciplinary model. We have tried to suggest examples and models of multidisciplinary research that can be seamless, include a range of practices and health professionals, and performs research that is contextual, pragmatic and directly beneficial to patients. We feel that for a successful multidisciplinary research workforce in primary care to become a reality, several key areas need to be addressed. Perhaps the most important of these may involve a conceptual change in thinking by all concerned in that we believe that research in primary care should become an integral part of routine primary care in the same way as health professionals routinely see patients or conduct audits. This could, however, only happen if there is commitment, support and a vision for the future of primary care research from decision makers. Local research networks and PCOs need to work closely together in identifying, nurturing and maintaining multidisciplinary research interest.

Hospice care is evolving from the traditional in-patient bedded unit into a system of support which is community focused. The cornerstone of this ‘community model’ of palliative care rests on successful collaboration with the primary health care team (PHCT). However, there is evidence that establishing a community service is not straightforward, and acceptance in principle is not always translated into practice. This article presents the findings of an evaluation of one such community palliative care service from the perspective of local general practitioners (GPs) and district nurses (DNs). A combination of interview and survey data is presented. A positive picture emerges. The findings suggest that the task of promoting and integrating the service in the community has been successful. The service was seen by members of the PHCT as helping to provide a choice of care settings and helping patients to remain at home. It was not perceived as having caused extra work or complicated lines of communication. However, it is an area which will require constant attention as other factors come into play.

Tayside's Primary Care Research and Development Network (TayRen) was awarded £140K per annum for 4 years from 1998 by the Scottish Office Department of Health. The operating model of TayRen is described and the outcomes highlighted. A multiprofessional, multidisciplinary, methodologically rigorous and locally responsive approach has contributed to the outcomes achieved. The network has enabled practitioners to gain research experience by working with more experienced colleagues. The research culture of Tayside has matured since the formation of TayRen as evidenced by the increased number of research practices (six), training fellowships (three), registration for higher degrees (18), grants (£3.9m) and publications (96). In conclusion, TayRen has increased research activity in primary care in Tayside.

An evaluation of agricultural systems often involves multidisciplinary teams that include crop scientists, animal scientists, soil scientists, pest control specialists, agricultural economists, and others. Agricultural economists can improve the technical quality and comprehe nsiveness of agricultural systems research in six major areas: budgeting and investment analyses; whole-farm and institutional factors; risk considerations; aggregate effects on crop and livestock prices; society-wide welfare effects of technical or policy changes; and economic values of environmental and other nonmarket effects. Economic analysis has been part of several successful multidisciplinary research efforts in the United States Pacific Northwest. These have covered soil conservation, integrated pest management, sustainable agriculture, crop rotation choice, and beef ranch management. As an example of institutional influences on economic outcomes, one study showed that the structure and selectivity of United States commodity programs have favored conventional over low-input rotations. Regarding risk management, an appropriate “package system” including conservation tillage, a diversified crop rotation, and adequate chemical weed management was shown both to sustain profitability and to reduce income fluctuations. Properly designed economic analysis can make similar contributions to identifying successful dryl and agricultural technologies throughout the world.

Multidisciplinary approaches are being attempted by agricultural research units along with their traditional single discipline approaches. Although single discipline research will still be needed, multidisciplinary approaches present special advantages.

The potential value of multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable agriculture research will be viewed differently by researchers with different perspectives. The participants in this symposium, all of whom were experienced sustainable agriculture researchers, identified five areas as keys for success. First, to capitalize fully on the opportunities it provides, there must be a justification for using a multidisciplinary approach for the specific research topic; while some projects work best with a multidisciplinary approach, others are best done within a single discipline. Second, everyone involved, including administrators, must invest time and money to establish communication between the disciplines. Third, careful attention must be given to forming and operating multidisciplinary teams effectively so that they generate shared benefits. Fourth, new sources of research funds will become available as agencies adopt multidisciplinary approaches, and revised systems will be required to administer those funds at the university or research unit level. Finally, major adjustments in the present systems for promotion, tenure and publication are necessary to properly measure and distribute credit.

The research agenda for agriculture remains an important concern for anyone interested in the future of sustainable agriculture. Differences in opinion remain on both prioritization of topics and on how and where the necessary research should be done. The inferences are that the research strategies of the 1960's and 70's were not appropriate. If we truly “learn from each other,” we must consider what recent reports, models, and recommendations from written sources and individuals seem to be saying. Examination of these sources suggests a number of characteristics for the research that is needed: 1) Research which addresses problems regional in scope and which are often site specific; 2) research prioritization must involve a broader cross-section of opinions than ever before and include farmers, private non-profit organizations and scientists; 3) research must be more multidisciplinary and include farmers, extension faculty, and staff more directly; 4) systems research requires more emphasis and adoption f or progress in many areas; 5) basic principles and theory for many agricultural disciplines will need examination and eventual modification; and 6) on-farm research is an essential part of the total research effort. The final obligation for all of us is a vigilance to assure that the research done is always of the highest quality.