융합연구팀의 과제와 미래: 조직행위론적 접근 (Overcoming Barriers of Multidisciplinary Research Teams: From the Perspective of Organizational Behavior)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 대한경영학회
· 수록지 정보 : 대한경영학회지 / 29권 / 2호 / 237 ~ 264페이지
· 저자명 : 백연정

초록

융합연구는 학문간 통합을 통한 창의적이고 혁신적인 지식 및 기술의 창출을 목표로 한다. 그러나 융합연구팀의 특성 상 독특한 현실적 난관들이 존재하기 때문에 그 목표가 달성되기는 쉽지 않다. 그럼에도 불구하고 융합연구팀 운영에 실질적인 도움을 줄 수 있는 경영학, 특히 조직행위론 분야에서 국내외 학계를 통틀어 융합연구팀을 대상으로 연구한 예를 찾아보기 힘들어, 융합연구팀의 성공적 운영에 대한 유용한 통찰을 제시하기가 힘들다. 이에 본고에서는 조직행위론 분야에서 융합연구팀과 가장 개념적으로 유사한 다기능팀을 중심으로 선행 연구를 체계적으로 검토하고, 융합연구에 참여하고 있는 연구자들에 대한 간단한 면접을 실시하여 융합연구팀의 현실적인 문제점을 규명하고 해결책을 제시하고자 하였다.
먼저 융합연구팀이라는 용어를 다학제팀이라는 조직행위론적 개념의 한 하위 형태로 재정의하여, 역시 다학제팀 형태 중 하나인 다기능팀을 중심으로 한 선행연구 검토의 정당성을 확보하였다. 다음으로 문헌연구 결과를 토대로 융합연구팀이 현실적으로 겪고 있는 난관들로 어떠한 것들이 있는지를 크게 세 가지로 구분하였다. 첫째는 각기 다른 분야에서 교육/훈련 받고 전문성을 쌓아온 연구자들이 협업함에 있어 인지적 차이(지식/정보/기술의 차이, 사고방식의 차이, 언어의 차이 등)로 인해 상호이해와 의사소통이 어려운 문제이다. 둘째는 연구자들이 각기 자신의 전공분야에 대하여 느끼는 연구자로서의 정체성 때문에 다른 분야에 대하여 적대적인 태도를 보이거나 편견을 가지게 되어 타 분야 출신 연구자들과 쉽게 합심하기 어렵다는 점이다. 세 번째 문제로는 단일학제 연구에 적합하게 설계된 인사제도가 융합연구라는 특수한 상황을 반영하지 못하여 생기는 미비점을 꼽을 수 있다.
이러한 융합연구팀의 현실적 난관들을 어떻게 완화할 수 있을 것인지를 크게 조직의 역할과 리더의 역할로 나누어 살펴보았다. 먼저 조직의 역할로는 다양한 분야를 접할 수 있는 교육/훈련 프로그램의 제공, 연구자들 간 상호작용을 촉진하는 물리적 환경의 제공, 융합연구의 특수성을 고려한 제도적 지원이 꼽혔다. 또 리더는 폭넓은 배경지식을 갖추고 참여적 리더십, 목표제시 행동, 변혁적 리더십을 보일 것이 요구되었다. 마지막으로 결론에서는 본 논문의 내용을 바탕으로 융합연구팀에 대한 향후 연구 방향을 제시하였으며, 실무적 시사점과 연구의 한계점을 논의하였다.

영어초록

Multidisciplinary research is a world-wide trend in the development of science and technology. The purpose of multidisciplinary research is to produce creative and innovative knowledge by integrating diverse knowledge, information and perspectives. However, it is not always easy to achieve the goal due to several problems unique to multidisciplinary research teams (MRTs). Although such problems are closely related to research topics of organizational behavior (OB), studies on multidisciplinary research teams have been scarce in not only domestic but also international academia of OB. The present study attempts to identify such problems based on a review of past studies on cross-functional teams that are considered conceptually similar to multidisciplinary research teams in the OB area. Data from a series of interviews and surveys with researchers of MRTs are also provided in order to show the tight link between the theoretical insight from the review on cross-functional teams and the reality of MRTs.
This study redefines MRTs as a type of multidisciplinary teams from the perspective of OB, justifying to get insights from past studies on cross-functional teams, another type of multidisciplinary teams. In other words, MRTs and cross-functional teams are similar in the sense that they consist of experts with different knowledge backgrounds. The difference between them is that MRTs are typically in research institutes while cross-functional teams are in companiIt is proposed, then, that the biggest potential benefit of MRTs is knowledge integration based on cognitive diversity, and the benefit can be achieved only when team members actively share their diverse information and knowledge and cooperate with one another. However, members of MRTs often experience difficulties in sharing their knowledge and cooperating with other team members. In other words, the potential benefit of knowledge integration is not always easy to harvest in MRTs.
Based on a review on the cross-functional teams literature as well as interviews with MRT researchers, the present study identifies three different types of barriers to successful functioning of MRTs. The first type of problems of MRTs is cognitive incompatibility resulted from education, training, and work experiences in different academic fields that MRT researchers have had. Researchers from different areas not only possess heterogeneous knowledge, information and perspectives, but also have different work styles, approaches, languages, world views and values. Cognitive incompatibility among researchers induces difficulties in mutual understanding and communication among researchers in MRTs. Another type of problems of MRTs is researchers’ strong professional identification with one’s own discipline. Such identification is natural as researchers have been socialized in their own fields for a long time, and desirable from the perspective of their own area. However, it can be problematic because it interferes with trusting and cooperating with researchers from other disciplines. Third, current performance evaluation and reward systems for MRTs were originally made for uni-disciplinary research, not multidisciplinary. As uni-disciplinary research typically takes shorter time and a less number of researchers than multidisciplinary research, performance evaluation and reward systems for uni-disciplinary research are not suitable for multidisciplinary research.
The present study makes practical suggestions for organizations and leaders of MRTs to mitigate the problems described above. For organizations, it is proposed to provide relevant training programs through which researchers of MRTs are exposed to multiple disciplines, and learn how to work as a team with researchers from different fields. It is also important to provide a work environment with physical proximity among team members that enables them to freely interact with one another on a daily basis. In addition, it is recommended to introduce new performance evaluation and reward systems customized for MRTs in order to motivate researchers to join and devote themselves to MRTs. For leaders, team leadership appropriate for the unique characteristics of MRTs is critical. Specifically, background knowledge in diverse areas, participative leadership behavior, goal-setting behavior and transformational leadership behavior are suggested to be helpful especially in MRTs. Finally, some future research directions about MRTs, practical implications and research limitations are discussed.

참고자료

· 없음