By Colleen Cuddy.
What kinds of integration are required in interdisciplinary teams to truly synthesize diverse knowledge and perspectives, creating meaningful outcomes? What are the key facilitators of successful integration?
Integration is a core team process in which “ideas, data and information, methods, tools, concepts, and/or theories … are synthesized, connected, or blended” (Repko, 2012: 4), combining diverse inputs that differ from and are more than the sum of parts (National Research Council, 2015). Integration is multifaceted, and interdisciplinary teams employ several types of integration, as shown in the table below. Social, knowledge, cognitive, and conceptual integration can be seen as a spectrum, with teams utilizing multiple types of integration, often concurrently, to reach team goals, and with innovative teams moving through the spectrum towards conceptual integration.
Social Integration
Coming together based on acceptance of the group: social relationships and activities that develop community and team identification
Knowledge Integration
Merging two or more unrelated knowledge structures into a single structure
Cognitive Integration
Reproducing or sharing crucial information while knowing where unique knowledge resides in the team
Conceptual Integration
Understanding the relationship between concepts to arrive at a new interpretation
Four types of integration (Source: modified from Cuddy, 2023)
Integration facilitators
My research (Cuddy, 2023) has revealed three key facilitators of successful integration: being together, being intentional, and knowing each other.
Being together: Leveraging proximity and connectedness
Being together encompasses both proximity and connectedness: proximity of being in the same time and space as others, physically or cognitively, while achieving a state of connectedness of people, ideas, and work.
Proximity, especially physical proximity, creates a space where integration can unfold. It can be achieved in any setting, even virtual, when the team comes together. However, it is particularly useful in a learning setting such as a laboratory, where the intimacy of sharing an experience can help propel integration.
Connectedness requires team members to be available, responsive, and have common goals. Team members enact integration by participating in the synchronous exchange of ideas, concepts, and knowledge through connection. It happens best in the moment and in person, often through the action of team members learning how to do something together.
Bringing people together in different settings and encouraging them to “bounce ideas off of each other” can help. It is important to note that teams can be proximal and unconnected. For example, a team may work together in an open office or laboratory space, but if team members wear headphones, they may block out each other and limit the possibility of connection.
Being intentional: Strategic behaviors and planned integration
Integration rarely happens by chance (although if you’ve laid the groundwork it might appear that way). It requires deliberate and consistent effort through intentional behaviors, practices, and structured activities designed to help facilitate integration. Being intentional considers two elements: intentional behaviors and planned integration. Team leadership can be instrumental in creating and building planned integration activities to build a strong integrative culture.
Intentional behaviors include being available, responsive, and accountable, assuming good intentions in interactions, working on relationships, and helping others. Empathetic behaviors, such as putting yourself in other people’s shoes, giving people the benefit of the doubt, and exploring alternative interpretations of interactions, benefit integration. Other behaviors that promote integration are being open-minded to new ideas, considering new ways of doing things, and seeking and providing regular, constructive feedback.
Planned integration focuses on building relationships and providing opportunities that allow teams to practice integration by giving direction and keeping the team focused on goals. Team leadership can create opportunities for social integration through programming, such as a buddy program for new team members, team social events, and team retreats. These opportunities can help prioritize team values and create a culture of togetherness. Settings should be considered when planning integration opportunities; for example, weekly laboratory meetings can be structured with icebreaker activities to encourage social integration in addition to knowledge integration opportunities of scientific presentation and dialogue.
Knowing each other: Building relationships beyond expertise
Knowing team mates as individuals, beyond their professional roles, is pivotal in facilitating effective integration. Knowing each other as people is more important than knowing each other as experts/scientists for promoting integration in all integration types and settings. Prioritizing knowing members as people and utilizing social integration to facilitate project integration enables team members to connect more easily with each other and helps move research forward. Once a personal connection is established, team members often feel more comfortable asking each other for help and feedback; encouraging informal interactions can help build interpersonal trust. Strategies to help team members know each other might include celebrating personal milestones and diversity within the team and developing practices that blend personal and professional interactions.
Conclusion
Effective integration is built on knowing each other as people, not just scientists, and enacted through relationships and knowledge sharing that are intentional. Integration happens best when the team comes together physically or cognitively. Social integration forms the basis from which cognitive and conceptual integration flourish and is a building block for these other types of integration. Social processes are instrumental in helping a team establish common ground, group identity, and trust.
Three practical steps to encourage integration are:
- Foster regular interactions to enhance proximity and connectedness in your team.
- Plan and commit to intentional, structured integration activities.
- Prioritize relationship-building that goes beyond professional roles.
How do these facilitators resonate with your experience, especially if your experience is based on interdisciplinary teamwork outside the US? Are there aspects of this work that you could use to strengthen interdisciplinary teamwork in your current research?
To find out more:
Cuddy, C. (2023). Integration and team effectiveness: An exploration of the process of integration in an interdisciplinary academic STEMM team. Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University: ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (no. 30638283). (Online – open access): https://www.proquest.com/docview/2861690474
Cuddy, C. (2025). Integration in action: Enhancing team science through collaborative practices, Interdisciplinary Integration Research Careers Hub (Intereach) webinar (February 11) hosted on the Integration and Implementation Sciences YouTube channel. (Online): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4iZK6bkZU0 (57min YouTube video)
References:
National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. (Eds.) N. J. Cooke and M. L. Hilton. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, United States of America.
Repko, A. F. (2012). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. 2nd ed. Sage: California, United States of America.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was used in the development of this i2Insights contribution to create an outline based on the author’s previous presentations of her research. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Colleen Cuddy PhD is an academic and researcher specializing in organizational development and team science. Based at Stanford University’s School of Medicine in California, USA, she strives to understand and improve the dynamics of team interactions in interdisciplinary research settings and other academic and clinical organizational structures by advancing and applying the science of teams. Her work integrates a variety of methodologies to study team processes with a focus on practical applications that enhance team effectiveness and foster organizational innovation.
Colleen, thank you for this important contribution!
I want to expand a bit on my comment on Linkedin, which was as follows:
Many aspects in this blogpost resonate with experiences from my role as integration expert in ITD research. Also reminds me of work by my colleagues who, in addition, also stress the emotional dimension: https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilungen/ess/projekte/ITD/211206_Reflective_Questions_for_Integrative_Leadership.pdf
To begin with, what you describe resonates a lot with my experiences from leading integration in a four-year inter- and transdisciplinary project. Yet, I have three remarks for further reflection: the first one, I already mentioned, is the emotional dimension of integration. Then, second, I think there can also be a technical dimension, e.g., if you think about integrating different perspectives into engineering solutions, big data-driven models, etc. And third, I wonder about your recommendation on “relationship-building that goes beyond professional roles”. I totally see the point, however, I assume this is also about finding the right balance of how much everyone wants and actually needs to go beyond professional roles. To put it simply, while acknowledging the importance of interpersonal relationships, I would claim that one can achieve integration without necessarily being friends. Would you agree? (PS: I make this comment from Switzerland where this mix of professional and private is less common than it might be in your context)
Hi Colleen, thanks for sharing these best practices and key reflections. I could not resonate with them more and also touched upon intentionality in my forthcoming paper on transdisciplinary water and climate projects in the Netherlands and Switzerland. I find myself often saying as I reflect on my work and research that its the ‘human stuff!’ that matters so much when building relationships, trust and successful collaborations, which you more eloquently discuss in this piece. I am curious though, how do you encourage this in projects when often the budget is focused on scientific work and output delivery and/or people see the value, but dismiss it when time gets tight?
As a Canadian working in the Netherlands, sometimes my North American attitude towards relationship building and collaboration is a bit daunting for others. I find myself balancing what is preferred by the groups I am working with, and also still gently pushing them out of their comfort zone, as I feel that at the end of the day, even across cultures, people respond to intentionality, openness, empathy, active listening and can settle into such processes – even if they aren’t used to them in their natural scientist, tech or engineering settings as much!
Lisa, thank you for sharing your thoughtful reflections! I appreciate your insights, especially the balance you describe between cultural sensitivity and gently encouraging deeper collaboration.
In response to your question about how to sustain attention to the “human stuff” when time and budget pressures mount in scientific projects, I think it helps to frame relational and social integration not as an add-on, but as a value-generating part of the scientific process itself—a return on investment for funders and other stakeholders. More research signaling that effective teaming can enhance scientific outcomes and improve funders’ investments is crucial. Some forward-thinking award mechanisms now incorporate teaming directly into grant structures, carving out time and resources for relationship-building at the start of a project. That’s a powerful top-down lever.
At the same time, I believe bottom-up strategies are just as essential. Simple practices—like thoughtful onboarding, regular use of icebreakers in team meetings, and cultivating inclusive meeting practices can create early wins and build a foundation for deep integration. Like you, I’ve found that cultural adaptability and respect for group norms go a long way. From there, intentionality can take root.
Finally, I think we have a real opportunity to invest in the next generation of scientists, including postdocs, graduate students, and early-career researchers, by modeling and teaching these practices now. When they bring an integration mindset into future labs and collaborations, it can seed a broader cultural shift in how we do interdisciplinary work.
Hi Colleen,
Thanks for your reply – I couldn’t agree more! And in fact, a recent publication by Karcher et al 2025 illustrates exactly your point of value-generation. See here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25001848
Thanks and I will continue to follow your work closely!
Thank you for this summary of your research, and recommendations for team integration! My own work is focused on understanding transdisciplinary team dynamics – your point about the importance of connectedness and “bouncing ideas off of one another” resonate. One team I work on uses a framework we call “deep dives”, where someone presents about their research area and some current problems they’re thinking about, leaving time and space for some truly generative dialogue within our cross-disciplinary group of researchers. The culture of connectedness and feedback that we’re building, along with this “deep dive” structure, has led to some interesting and unexpected research ventures! It’s helpful to see this reflected in your framework, and I look forward to reading more.
Thank you for sharing your own experience about the importance of connection. “Deep dives” sounds like a great model to facilitate integration. Learning together in a protected space with vulnerability and openness is a great way to learn more about the people behind the research and build a culture of connection as team members learn about the science. And, I am happy to hear that it is leading to unexpected research ventures!