There is currently much debate, particularly in the
area of art-science partnerships, as to what actually
constitutes ‘collaboration'. In the Fish-Bird
project, we have chosen to adopt the following definition.
Our definition is deliberately broad, but is also altruistic:
it should explicitly acknowledge the contributions of
We argue that ultimate success or failure of a truly
collaborative project, such as the one described here,
is best measured by the scholarship of the project outcomes.
We define scholarship in terms of the following: knowledge
of ‘best practise’ in one’s own discipline;
the advancement of ‘best practise’; and
the dissemination and uptake of the research outcomes
by one’s peers. We believe that in a project such
as Fish-Bird artistic merit should not be the sole metric
by which the project is judged. True interdisciplinary
collaboration demands that the disciplines of all contributors
acknowledge the work as a ‘scholarly contribution'.
That is, from the viewpoint of each discipline the work
has ‘value,’ in making an original contribution
to the field.