It’s time to change the culture around interdisciplinary research

• This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Charlotte George, Ralitsa Madsen, Cristina Martin, Chris Ponting & X-Net, the interdisciplinary research network.

Two University academics put in a room will soon ask each other: ‘What do you do?’ This is most often a question of identity and belonging: In what discipline were you trained? To which community do you belong?

It is also a question of power and status: Are they at the same career stage? Are they tenured? Have they published in this named journal or that?

Now, if one of these academics works across disciplines then how will they state their identity or belonging? Do they describe themself by the discipline in which they first were trained or the one in which they are currently working? How might this alter how they are perceived by the other academic who has dedicated their career to a single discipline?

In our project, X-Net, we surveyed 76 researchers, half of whom identified themselves as interdisciplinarians; the others identified themselves differently to different people. One-third were at a mid-career level, and half were senior. We followed up with workshops involving industry and public representatives.

Results were striking, shocking even. Over 60% of respondents experienced a negative environment when crossing disciplines at some point in their careers. One volunteered: “I have experienced both support and hostility. People who value interdisciplinary research are supportive. In contrast, many mono-disciplinary scientists think that interdisciplinary scientists are ‘experts in nothing’, and so their research is less rigorous and poorer in quality.”

Another told us that there is ‘very little support when crossing disciplines. Rather, much greater support of researchers/research in single disciplines. There is a culture of neglect towards cross-disciplinary researchers rather than a conscious bias against them.’

We asked patient and public representatives: ‘What is at stake and why is interdisciplinary collaboration important?’ Their response was telling: ‘If researchers are not working together, it creates reputational damage and mistrust, and less inclination to engage in future.’ Researchers should ‘leave [their] ego at the door.’

An industry representative said: ‘In 5 years’ time, whatever skills and knowledge [researchers] have will have evolved. We continue to evolve throughout our career. So, people who are really curious and show their ability and interest to learning are super important to us.’

Academics who cross disciplinary boundaries are explorers. Their journey is often long – far longer than reckoned by funders or tenure committees – and arduous, and carries greater risk than the shorter career journeys of single-disciplinary researchers. One survey respondent told X-Net: ‘You work twice as hard, you get half the credit. As an interdisciplinary scientist by training, I feel deeply betrayed by the system. I am aware of my unique skill set. I’m just realising that it may get me stuck in the same career level forever if the evaluation system doesn’t change.’

Prof Ewan Birney, Deputy Director General of EMBL, told X-Net: ‘Interdisciplinary research peer review is difficult because of double jeopardy when being judged and an unhelpful tribal attitude about the use of specific language. We miss opportunities for grants and publishing because of this.’

All of this points to interdisciplinary researchers being substantially disadvantaged, held back in their careers, and facing additional difficulties getting their grants or journal submissions published. 

X-Net wrote to UK funders summarising our evidence: ‘Interdisciplinary researchers are left to navigate the turbulent academic system alone without support networks or mentorship. Environmental support is haphazard, varying greatly by department and institution. Interdisciplinary researchers still face research cultures hostile to their interrogative innovation. The transformative potential of interdisciplinary researchers is rarely attained.’

If ideas and expertise are to flow freely across traditional disciplinary and sector boundaries, giving maximum benefit to UK society and economy, then the delivery of interdisciplinary research needs root-and-branch reform. This is widely acknowledged. The chief executive of UKRI said that it ‘has not yet fully delivered on its objective to encourage interdisciplinary working.’ In 2016 both the British Academy and League of European Research Universities recommended the re-organisation of academic institutions. Progress since, according to X-Net’s evidence, has been slow.

A sense of urgency is warranted. With evolving technologies (including AI) reshaping careers, our researchers need to be equipped quickly with skills in interdisciplinary working that allow them to adapt and embrace new areas of expertise. This necessitates a rapid change in academic research to enable interdisciplinarity to thrive. The disadvantage reported by X-Net respondents is widespread and will be compounded by wider equality, diversity and inclusion issues.

The REF2029 People, Culture and Environment indicators provide a window of opportunity to trigger change. If, as we expect, these indicators reveal a general malaise in interdisciplinary research culture then Higher Education Institutions should move quickly to break down the barriers faced by interdisciplinarians. X-Net recommends focused support for interdisciplinarians that would benefit the whole research system. Further, we propose increased mobility across disciplines and sectors, more equitable evaluation of interdisciplinarians’ careers, and more nurturing research environments.