Denise Caruso
Diana Rhoten, Ph.D.
April 2001
[pdf]

ABSTRACT
The benefits to interdisciplinary research–and the shortcomings of a world that is deconstructed and “understood” primarily by specialization–have been apparent for several decades. Over the past several years in particular, interdisciplinarity has become the darling of the research community, synonymous with all things modern and creative and progressive about science.

Leading scientists and bureaucrats state unequivocally that it is the challenges and stimulation of struggling to exchange ideas with people from other disciplines that will lead to major scientific breakthroughs and increase our knowledge of the natural world.

Even more critically, experts believe interdisciplinary research properly conducted can move beyond the bounds of discovery, increasing the explanatory power, immediate relevance, and practical application of research to complex, real-world problems.

But neither the popularity nor the necessity of interdisciplinary research is reflected in the reality of the situation today: Shockingly few researchers or institutions have meaningful experience with its actual practice.

The reason that such a paradox exists is clear: the practice of interdisciplinarity is difficult and fraught with roadblocks, particularly for researchers who have been raised–and who continue to participate–in the tradition of disciplinarity and departmentalism. Not incidentally, no meaningful metrics and little empirical data are available today to gauge interdisciplinary methods.

Based on what data do exist, this paper makes explicit what has worked and what has not for the practice of interdisciplinary research; the assumptions made about its practice; extant organizational and psychological factors which lead to success or failure; and some recent and/or notable examples of these successes and failures.

Roadblocks explored include the strong institutional bias against interdisciplinarity at most universities; the differences in defining and achieving success for an interdisciplinary vs. a disciplinary endeavor; achieving consensus on a common problem or topic for study; establishing common understanding; access to cross-disciplinary data and publications; competition and the “geopolitics” of knowledge; the willingness to trust others outside of the home disciplines; publication requirements; and a commitment to shared resources and funding.

The Macarthur Research Network model for collaborative research is discussed as a prototype of an existing interdisciplinary program which successfully addresses many of these barriers, albeit in a narrow subject area.

The paper ends by exploring at length the Hybrid Vigor Institute’s proposal for sidestepping these roadblocks which allows researchers to choose from various levels of participation–to lead, follow and/or simply observe–and establishing both a new mechanism for knowledge production and re-integration, and a resource center for researchers with interdisciplinary aspirations, that explores both the process and the content of interdisciplinary research.

It should be clearly understood before proceding that, while arguing the need for and advocating the advantages of interdisciplinary research, this paper does not pit interdisciplinarity against disciplinarity. Rather, it is our position that specialized, disciplinary research is, should be and will remain vitally important at the same time that broader approaches–such as interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity–are needed to focus on the increasingly vexing problems and issues of today’s complex world.

We agree with the assessment of Denis Prager, former director of health programs at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, when he states that interdisciplinary research “stands on the shoulders of rigorous disciplinary research; it is the next step in the building of knowledge that has the power to address the complex problems…that threathen the health, well-being, and quality of life of people and the communities in which they live.”