Thomas J. Marlowe is Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Seton Hall University, where he was the coordinator of the computer science program until beginning phased retirement this summer. His research spans many areas, with publications in software engineering, collaboration (including risk analysis, intellectual property issues, and development structures and processes) and information science, language support for real-time systems, program optimization and analysis, and computer science pedagogy (including problem-solving and critical thinking), as well as topics in mathematics, information science, and interdisciplinary studies. He holds a B.S and M.S in Mathematics from Seton Hall University, and an M.S. in Computer Science, a Ph.D. Computer Science, and a Ph.D. Mathematics, all from Rutgers University. He has been a regular at these conferences since 2008.
• Have the changes in bibliographic research and research methods brought about by the internet, social media and software support for collaboration and communication been: primarily an accelerant? Deeper but largely superficial? Pervasive and substantial? If the last, in what way(s)?
• Has collaboration become more common and/or easier due to collaborative software? Has this really changed its frequency or nature? The likelihood of interdisciplinary collaboration?
• Has data science changed the way research is done and presented? Positively? Will development of digital humanities strengthen/save the humanities? Signal their death as a distinct mode of inquiry? Does it support or inhibit the formation of alternate models in the natural and social sciences?
• CP Snow wrote/lectured about his perception of the growing gap between academics/researchers in the sciences and in the humanities, where many of the former looked down on the latter, and many of the latter neither grasped nor wanted to understand the former. Beyond historical accident, this was in part due to the vast gulf in terminology, idioms, concepts, patterns, practices, approaches, and philosophy, even for overlapping problems. It can be argued that mathematics and computer science/informatics have become a third equally mutually incomprehensible culture, with very different approaches and patterns of thought. To what extent is this real? If it exists, is it primarily conceptual, or due to siloing, turf protection, lack of interest, or allopatric speciation?
• Will informatics and computing specialists serve as a bridge or translator between disciplines? A dam inhibiting or preventing progress? A priesthood or secret society with its own rituals and argot?
• Does systems and software engineering methodology say anything useful about modeling and investigation in other disciplines? Does the requirements process in these disciplines actually communicate successfully with academic clients and experts in other areas?
• Does informatics support, inhibit, or not affect the formation of interdisciplinary ventures, projects, teams, or research initiatives? Does it change the preparation that the non-informatics specialists should bring to the table? If so, how can we prepare academics and researchers? Have existing interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary projects helped to bridge the two-culture or three-culture gaps?
• Given the (partial) reality of the above changes, and the growing importance of data-driven and interdisciplinary projects, we can no longer rely simply on luck, polymaths and the fortunately educated. How can we prepare conceptual map-readers, navigators, and tour guides to explore intellectual landscapes, and communicators, translators, integrators, and change managers to work with “multi-cultural” and interdisciplinary/cross-disciplinary teams?
• What do systemics, second-order cybernetics, or similar integrative disciplines have to contribute?
• What can be done to include a broad-based philosophical, historical, ethical, multi-disciplinary and integrative perspective in the education of all academics and researchers, to minimize the effects of these problems?
• Do women, minority and non-traditional academics/researchers have a different perception? Do they bring different mindsets and backgrounds to the table?
