Why, with whom, and how to conduct interdisciplinary research? A review from a researcher’s perspective

Abstract

Many complex problems and emerging phenomena require joint research efforts across academic disciplines. Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is therefore widely considered a promising approach to knowledge production. At the same time, however, this form of research poses significant challenges for those involved. In this paper, we review the literature on IDR from the perspective of individual researchers engaging in or considering this type of research. We conducted a broad literature review covering the past 35 years of research on IDR. The review is structured along four typical questions that researchers have regarding IDR: “Why bother?” (Reasons for considering IDR); “Is it for me?” (The profile of IDR researchers); “How do I work with ‘them’?” (Obstacles of interdisciplinary collaboration); “What am I getting myself into?” (Challenges for IDR researchers). We analyzed the literature so that we could distill answers to those questions. We conclude our paper by emphasizing the inherent ambiguities of interdisciplinary research and proposing a set of self-reflective questions to help navigate the complexities of this research approach.

1. An increasingly popular research approach

Academia is experiencing an increasing emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary research (IDR). Regardless of disciplinary traditions, academic fields across the board are moving towards more IDR (Silva et al., 2013; Lynn 2014; Chakraborty 2018), as it is widely considered a promising way to explore complex social challenges, emerging phenomena, and hidden solutions (Aboelela et al., 2007). IDR is typically portrayed as a form of research that has the potential to leverage disciplinary expertise while simultaneously overcoming disciplinary limitations (Lyne 2015; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016). It is therefore advocated by research institutions and funding bodies (Sá 2008; Woolley et al., 2015). As a result of this common interest, academia has extensively reflected upon this research practice, which resulted in a substantial number of publications dealing with IDR. These publications discuss IDR’s role in the academic system, how to define IDR, where it is conducted, and much more. However, this considerable interest in IDR is juxtaposed with a highly disciplinary academic education system. This effectively means that while researchers are frequently encouraged to pursue IDR for its potential to produce novel outcomes, their disciplinary training offers little insight into what such research truly involves (Aboelela et al., 2007; Priaulx and Weinel 2018). Additionally, there are limited alternatives available to complement or replace traditional disciplinary education (Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023). Isn’t it contradictory that IDR is widely called for and heavily advocated, yet the typical researcher is not trained in it?

Consequently, many researchers find themselves in situations where they are expected to understand and apply a research practice known to them only as an abstract concept. The fact that many studies reflecting on IDR adopt a systemic point of view is not helpful either (e.g. Rhoten 2004; Aboelela et al., 2007). This means that they discuss the importance of IDR for the scientific system as a whole, but give much less emphasis to the individual researchers engaging in IDR (e.g. Carayol and Thi 2005; Lyall 2019). Furthermore, by its very nature, research on IDR is scattered across academia, making it incredibly laborious for individual researchers curious about the topic to gather relevant information in the first place.

With this paper, we intend to address these issues by combining related but mostly disjoint insights about IDR and explaining what they mean for researchers engaging in or considering IDR. Therefore, we contribute to the existing literature by bringing together publications from various fields and presenting the key messages that matter most for the IDR-curious academic. An overarching goal of this article is to empower researchers to engage in IDR projects successfully. We do this by reviewing the literature on IDR published over the past 35 years. Within this period, we identified 179 key publications and analyzed them, extracting answers and recommendations for individual researchers. We organized our analysis along the following four typical questions that researchers have regarding IDR:

● Why bother? Reasons for considering IDR

● Is it for me? The profile of IDR researchers

● How do I work with “them”? Enabling interdisciplinary collaboration

● What am I getting myself into? Challenges for IDR researchers

The results of the literature review can be of direct use to researchers when deciding whether to conduct interdisciplinary research, when designing their interdisciplinary research projects, and when processing and disseminating their results. In the concluding part of our paper, we explain that IDR confronts researchers with both ambiguity and complexity. We suggest three specific types of ambiguity that are inherent to IDR projects, and that cannot be resolved but need to be taken into consideration. We further suggest self-reflective questions. These questions are intended to help researchers gain a clearer perspective on the complexities of the IDR process.

2. What do we mean when we refer to IDR?

Predominantly, IDR is understood as the merger of either knowledge (Wang, Thijs, and Glänzel 2015; Andersen 2016; Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016; Brink et al., 2018; Dorst 2018; Holmes et al., 2018; Jarvis 2018; Zhang et al., 2018) or methods (Aboelela et al., 2007; Alvargonzález 2011; Andersen 2016; Bammer 2017; Davids 2018; Jarvis 2018) from several academic disciplines. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States defines IDR as “a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice” (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine 2005: 2). This definition is widely accepted and has been referred to in a range of studies that discuss IDR (Barry, Born, and Weszkalnys 2008; Wagner et al., 2011; McLeish and Strang 2016; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2018; Jarvis 2018; Madsen 2018; Sclater and Lally 2018; Gibson et al., 2019). In the sense of this definition, we can characterize the core of IDR as the integration of two or more disciplinary perspectives (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018). It is generally assumed that this is accomplished by a team of researchers (Fiore 2008; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2018; Jarvis 2018; Madsen 2018; Sclater and Lally 2018; Gibson et al., 2019). On occasion, this collaborative and disciplinary-crossing form of academic research is also referred to as “team science” (Brew 2008; Fiore 2008; Hall et al., 2008). However, the two terms IDR and team science are not synonyms, as it is indeed possible to conduct IDR individually (Rafols 2007; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011).

IDR does not aim to fully fuse perspectives (Aboelela et al., 2007) as both the integrity and independence of each involved discipline are preserved (Alvargonzález 2011). For research to qualify as interdisciplinary (IDR), the integration of knowledge, methods, tools, or concepts must be so profound that it leads to a shift in one’s disciplinary perspective, resulting in the creation of something new—beyond what any single discipline could achieve on its own (Yang and Heo 2014; Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016; Bergmann et al., 2017; Archibald et al., 2018; Brink et al., 2018; Boon and van Baalen 2019). However, it is important to recognize that perceptions of interdisciplinarity can vary significantly across fields. For example, what is considered interdisciplinary in biology may differ substantially from chemistry or physics, reflecting the relative and field-dependent nature of the term (Ávila-Robinson, Mejia, and Sengoku 2021). Furthermore, the necessity of IDR is not perceived as equally important across all disciplines. For instance, in areas like robotics, where the development of socially intelligent robots requires insights from neuroscience and psychology, interdisciplinary collaboration is not only advantageous but also necessary for advancing the field (Wudarczyk et al., 2021).

In order to successfully accomplish the integration of knowledge, methods, tools, or concepts, a basic understanding of IDR is necessary (Andersen 2016; Bammer 2017). This can be achieved ‘through processes of generalization, differentiation, reciprocity, and accommodation’ of practices from other research fields (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014: 7). Alternatively, fundamental principles and underlying values can be identified to introduce new combinations of existing principles, methods, or actions, or create entirely new ones (Dorst 2018). Scholars have consistently noted that the significant epistemological differences between disciplines make interdisciplinary research efforts highly challenging, and at times, it may even seem ‘impossible’ (Graff 2016; Brink et al., 2018; Boon and van Baalen 2019). Some disciplines with similar epistemological roots may find it easier to collaborate with each other (e.g. social science disciplines like sociology, psychology, and political science) than with unrelated fields (e.g. STEM; Gates et al., 2024). Furthermore, the complexity created by the combination of disciplines poses a major challenge to adequate quality control (Boix Mansilla 2006; Andersen 2016; Holmes et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Vienni Baptista, Vasen, and Villa Soto 2019), as clear evaluation criteria are missing (Graff 2016; Martinez et al., 2018), nor does adequate standardization for IDR results exist (Ribeiro 2016).

IDR is conceptually close to other forms of cross-disciplinary research, especially multidisciplinarity (MD) and transdisciplinarity (TD). MD refers to research in which several researchers work on a common goal (Fiore 2008; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Mazzocchi 2019), side by side (Braun and Schubert 2003; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018) and in parallel (Aboelela et al., 2007; Decker, Campbell, and Braunstein 2018) but independently (Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Yang and Heo 2014; Bakaki et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). In comparison to IDR, MD research does not aim at the integration of knowledge, methods, tools, or concepts across disciplines; instead, it aims at juxtaposing different disciplinary perspectives while working on a common topic (Schummer 2004; Hvidtfeldt 2017). As for TD, this type of research strongly focuses on integrating different disciplinary perspectives (Gröschl and Gabaldon 2018). This is why it is sometimes used interchangeably with IDR (Boon and van Baalen 2019; Guimarães et al., 2019). However, in TD, the level of integration is significantly higher, often involving collaboration with nonacademic collaborators and leading to the development of shared conceptual frameworks (Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Yang and Heo 2014; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Zhang 2018) and even new research fields (Aboelela et al., 2007). With TD, the aim is to transcend disciplinary boundaries (Alvargonzález 2011; Bakaki et al., 2018; Holzer, Carmon, and Orenstein 2018). In contrast, IDR aims at an integration that allows for the preservation of the underlying disciplinarity.

Figure 1 illustrates various research practices and contrasts them with purely disciplinary research. It becomes clear that these practices vary in the extent to which knowledge flows are integrated. How much disciplines “fuse” thus differentiate these practices. Multidisciplinary research can be seen as “additive,” where disciplinary work is conducted side by side. IDR is “interactive,” with fields engaging closely while maintaining their boundaries. Transdisciplinary research is “holistic,” where disciplinary boundaries dissolve, and knowledge from outside academia is integrated into the research process.

In this review, we focus on IDR, leaving aside the other forms of cross-disciplinary research practices. From a researcher’s perspective, IDR represents a unique balancing act. It involves both challenging disciplinary norms and maintaining disciplinary boundaries. Researchers engaged in IDR must navigate the paradox of adhering to their disciplinary traditions while also transcending them. Managing this balancing act is crucial, as IDR is often necessary to tackle complex research problems that cannot be fully resolved within the confines of a single discipline (Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023). This dual-natured requirement of IDR presents a challenge for researchers and raises questions that we aim to address in this review.

3. Method of this systematic literature review

We carried out a representative, qualitative literature review to examine previous work associated with interdisciplinary research and to collect typical challenges and potential solutions (cf. Pickering and Byrne 2014). A flow diagram (see Fig. 2) illustrates our literature search process. To analyze and structure the data, we developed a category system of codes. This approach allowed us to capture a broad amount of diverse information on a more general level, which was further refined in a stepwise coding process.

3.1 Paper selection process

For the period 1990 to June 2024, we performed the query (TS =  “interdisciplinarity” OR TS = “research collaboration” OR TS = “team science” OR TS = “transdisciplinarity” OR TS = “multidisciplinarity”) AND LANGUAGE: (English) in the Web of Science Core Collection. We searched in the titles, keywords, and abstracts. The reason for selecting the Web of Science database is its comprehensive nature and broad academic acceptance. We chose the search terms because they are often used synonymously despite their different definitions (see Section 2 of this paper).

The query identified 11,971 documents (compare Fig. 2). Furthermore, we identified a special issue on the topic of interdisciplinarity from 2016 in the Palgrave Communications database and included this database in our search. This provided us with 28 additional texts, which led to a total of 11,999 documents (including duplicates) for our initial screening. We then manually screened the titles and abstracts of these documents, removed duplicates, and refined the selection for thematic fit, including the removal of, for example, articles that apply a rather monodisciplinary perspective on IDR between different sub-disciplines, articles that do not adopt the perspective of an individual researcher, or articles where the main contribution is focused on policy recommendations or guidelines for institutions. This left us with 535 texts. These texts were then fully evaluated, and the selection was further refined to include only publications that made an explicit statement about IDR from the perspective of the individual researcher. This resulted in the final selection of 179 documents (see Supplementary Table S1 in Supplementary Materials).

3.2 Coding procedure

In the coding procedure, we followed the thematic-coding concept, which balances deductive and inductive analyses (e.g. Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). We proceeded iteratively with the software ATLAS.ti version 9. We began with an initial coding scheme based on the following questions relevant in the context of IDR: why, what, who, when, where, how, and with whom? We started with a set of papers that prominently appeared in the initial literature search (e.g. Aboelela et al., 2007; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017). These papers were selected because they focus directly on the viability of conducting IDR. Applying the questions and key topics of IDR research (like career level, home discipline, publication outlet) emerged and were added to the code system.

The coding scheme has been refined with a focus on the individual IDR researcher’s perspective, introduced, and discussed with three additional coders. They initially coded three papers each and based on their feedback, the codes were slightly refined and definitions were clarified. The final coding scheme can be found in Supplementary Table S2 in supplementary materials. In an iterative process, we coded all 179 papers, with discussion meetings in between to secure a similar understanding and application of the coding scheme. For each code, the authors compiled all associated quotations from the papers. We then reviewed this collection to extract the most essential information from each code group. Along the coding process, three aggregation levels were introduced to extract the key messages and topics while accounting for the amount of codes and their content breadth (except for definitions, which were taken in their original form). Using the initial coding scheme—why, what, who, when, where, how, and with whom—we developed four central questions to structure the analysis results. The paper’s structure was designed so that the content reflects these questions and the coding results, minimizing content overlap and repetition. This approach led to four typical questions from the perspective of a researcher interested in IDR, which will structure the following sections of this review:

● Why bother? Reasons for considering IDR

● Is it for me? The profile of IDR researchers

● How do I work with “them”? Enabling interdisciplinary collaboration

● What am I getting myself into? Challenges for IDR researchers

We acknowledge several limitations in our methodology that may influence the scope and objectivity of our findings. First, relying solely on Web of Science may introduce bias by excluding research from other databases. Second, our self-developed coding scheme and analysis questions introduce a certain degree of subjectivity. Additionally, restricting our study to peer-reviewed academic papers excludes potential insights from policy documents and comments. Third, the authors’ disciplinary backgrounds may have biased the interpretation and framing of results. Lastly, focusing exclusively on English publications may lead to overlooking significant studies in other languages.

4. Why bother? Reasons for considering IDR

There are a multitude of reasons to engage in IDR. Most of these reasons fall into one of three categories: (1) the motivation of individual researchers, (2) the need to address complex problems, and (3) the advancement of academic fields. Furthermore, IDR is seen as a reflection of modern society, where different social areas are increasingly combined. This behavior is mirrored in academia through the practice of IDR (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015).

The individual researchers’ motivation is a driving force of many IDR projects (Woolley et al., 2015). This motivation can be extrinsic, for example, when researchers see the opportunity in IDR to advance their careers through additional publications (Oliver et al., 2018), enhanced reputation (Kumar 2015), increased citations (Hicks, Fitzsimmons, and Polunin 2010; Chen, Arsenault and Larivière 2015; Larivière, Haustein, and Börner 2015; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2017; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017)—although Levitt and Thelwall (2008) argue against this—, chances to win awards (Wowk et al., 2017), more patent applications (Power and Handley 2019), or greater visibility (Stokols et al., 2008b; Porter and Rafols 2009; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017). Furthermore, individual researchers’ intrinsic motivations—to learn something new (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011), to be more creative in their work (Wang, Thijs, and Glänzel 2015), to establish interpersonal relationships, to share personal interests, experiences, and values, or to gain life experience (Ryymin and Lamberg 2022)—are reasons to engage in IDR.

When it comes to IDR, it is, generally speaking, not a “the more the merrier” situation, as “too much” IDR is associated with lower academic impact (Larivière and Gingras 2010; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015). This can be explained by the fact that researchers who engage heavily in IDR tend to publish less (Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017). IDR projects are also much more difficult to get published as they do not fit into the traditional peer-review process (Boix Mansilla 2006; McLeish and Strang 2016; Kwon et al., 2017), which expects disciplinary norms and standards (Levitt and Thelwall 2008; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Vantard, Galland, and Knoop 2023). This, in turn, leads to a situation in which researchers struggle to find respectable outlets, as their audience is harder to specify (Scanlon and Conole 2018; Trinh et al., 2022; Mäkinen, Evans, and McFarland 2024), and most IDR-focused journals are generally less prestigious (Weber and Syed 2019). Academic journals, on the other hand, struggle to find suitable reviewers (McLeish and Strang 2016) who are able to assess all included disciplines.

The second motivation source results from the fact that, in their academic work, some researchers face intricate questions that cannot be answered with the knowledge and methods of their own discipline. To address these complex problems, it is often necessary to integrate other disciplinary perspectives (e.g. Braun and Schubert 2003; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2012; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Andersen 2016; Schmitt et al., 2023; Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023). This is especially the case for societal problems like health (Stokols et al., 2008a), digitalization, and other sociotechnical developments (Moats 2020; Wudarczyk et al., 2021; Zaiț et al., 2021), or environmental problems and climate change (Vugteveen, Lenders, and van den Besselaar 2014; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Lanier et al., 2018), which different disciplines study in completely different ways (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Rafols et al., 2012; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016). To develop novel insights into these problems, it is often useful to bring together different research strands or methodological approaches. Furthermore, IDR is more likely to lead to applicable results (Carayol and Thi 2005; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023; Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023) and a greater depth of idea generation (Michinov and Jeanson 2023) because of its joint problem-solving nature.

The advancement of academic fields is the third reason for engaging in IDR. This is, for instance, the case when a researcher’s home discipline is stuck in a specific school of thought or methodological dead-end. When disciplines reach their methodological or theoretical limits (Woolley et al., 2015; Gibson et al., 2019), sharing knowledge with other disciplines can reignite fields (Sanz-Menéndez, Bordons, and Zulueta 2001; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2017; Norder, Emich, and Sawhney 2018; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022). More specifically, IDR can improve research outcomes in terms of creativity (Carayol and Thi 2005; Uzzi et al., 2013; Sclater and Lally 2018), innovation (Pratt, Hauser, and Sugimoto 2012; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Zhang et al., 2018; Mensah, Enu-Kwesi, and Boohene 2019; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022; Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023), productivity (Pratt, Hauser, and Sugimoto 2012; Bridle 2018), and overall research success (Pluchino et al., 2019). These advantages are best achieved through a mix of diverse perspectives (Carayol and Thi 2005; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Scanlon and Conole 2018; Sclater and Lally 2018; Wudarczyk et al., 2021) and through a mutual improvement of research tools (Lanier et al., 2018). Furthermore, the aspiration to develop academic fields through IDR is widely promoted, for instance, by funding bodies that support IDR or even explicitly demand it (Sanz-Menéndez, Bordons, and Zulueta 2001; Mäki 2016; Steinmetz 2017; Gibson et al., 2019). This goes along with a great emphasis on IDR within the natural sciences (e.g. Yang and Heo 2014), especially by now-established disciplines, which are combinations of at least two primary disciplines (Stokols et al., 2008b)—for example, biomedicine (Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016), chemical engineering (Van den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001), material sciences (Yang and Heo 2014), and nanotechnology (Wang, Notten, and Surpatean 2013). Technological advancements also often require interdisciplinary examination. Examples include technological innovations (Van den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001), information science (Chang 2018), digital humanities (Dürfeld et al., 2018), and cybersecurity or cyber warfare (Decker, Campbell, and Braunstein 2018).

Furthermore, different disciplines lend themselves differently to IDR. In this context, their typical outputs play a pivotal role (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011). Disciplines oriented toward solving problems (Woolley et al., 2015), for example, the social sciences (e.g. Morillo, Bordons, and Gómez 2003; Stokols et al., 2008a; Vugteveen, Lenders, and van den Besselaar 2014; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015) or environmental science (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Lanier et al., 2018), and disciplines that are application-oriented (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011), like medicine (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Larivière, Haustein, and Börner 2015) and cognitive science (Mazzocchi 2019), are recognized by potential research partners as valuable for IDR. In contrast, disciplines focusing on basic research (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011) or those with overall lower citation rates (Larivière, Haustein, and Börner 2015) are less favored by other disciplines for collaboration. Furthermore, an invisible hierarchy of prestige exists among disciplines, which influences the likelihood of a discipline being involved in IDR (Brew 2008). Disciplinary power imbalances can emerge, particularly in collaborations that span “hard” and “soft” fields such as the natural sciences and the social sciences (Ylijoki 2022; Horn et al., 2023).

5. Is it for me? The profile of IDR researchers

The profiles of researchers for whom IDR is especially appealing can be categorized into two dimensions: personality and career stage.

From a personality perspective, successful interdisciplinary researchers must be open to new perspectives on research topics, receptive to collaborating with new colleagues, and skilled in team cooperation (Campbell 2005; Stokols et al., 2008b; Lehan 2018; Guimarães et al., 2019; Mazzocchi 2019). Additionally, they should possess a strong personal interest and passion for solving interdisciplinary research problems (Spence, Markauskaite, and McEwen 2024). A successful IDR researcher is described as agreeable (Aboelela et al., 2007), curious, creative (Guimarães et al., 2019), and exhibiting high levels of extraversion and conscientiousness (Katoh, Aalbers, and Sengoku 2021). As IDR comes with the challenge of quickly acquiring knowledge and/or methods from other disciplines, a high level of cognitive flexibility and quick receptiveness are highly beneficial (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Graff 2016; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Guimarães et al., 2019; Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023), as well as the ability to reflect on one’s own and others’ perspectives and underlying values and assumptions (Horn et al., 2022b). Advantageous when engaging in IDR is, furthermore, self-motivation (Muzur 2018; Haman and Hertzum 2019) as well as intrinsic motivation—including an eagerness to learn in general and from others (Robinson 2008; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Guimarães et al., 2019; Mazzocchi 2019; Ganapati and Mostafavi 2021); a desire to explore and conduct research free from the constant pressure to publish (Woodworth et al., 2023); a willingness to connect unrelated pieces of knowledge and to engage with new fields (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Mazzocchi 2019; Ylijoki 2022; Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023), and a commitment to work on better approaches to societal challenges (Baptista 2021).

The time-intensive nature of interdisciplinary work often worsens these challenges, as long-term engagement across disciplines is crucial but hard to achieve within short-term projects and competitive academic settings (Ylijoki 2022; Woodworth et al., 2023; Spence, Markauskaite, and McEwen 2024). Additionally, viewing disciplinary differences as reflections of people rather than methods can reinforce hierarchies and hinder collaboration (Simula and Scott 2021).

Given these challenges caused by the diverse backgrounds of researchers typically involved in an IDR project, professional competencies, such as good communication, teamwork, and leadership skills (Stokols et al., 2008b; Bridle 2018; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018; Guimarães et al., 2019) are also required for IDR. Effective collaboration in interdisciplinary projects also requires intellectual humility and curiosity (Ganapati and Mostafavi 2021). The ability to recognize the limits of one’s discipline and being open to the contributions of others are key to overcoming epistemic differences. Especially intellectual humility allows researchers to respect and value the input from disciplines other than their own, which is critical in balancing the hierarchical tendencies in interdisciplinary work (Vanney et al., 2023). Their relationship to their home discipline influences a researcher’s decision on whether or not to engage in IDR (Carayol and Thi 2005; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017). IDR is less attractive for researchers who are highly integrated into a discipline (Engwall 2018), as this home discipline provides the security of established networks, reliable processes, and familiar publication outlets (Nastar, Boda, and Olsson 2018).

Previous experience in the context of IDR promotes motivation and thus, more engagement in IDR (Woolley et al., 2015). Researchers with experience in teamwork are more likely to engage in IDR (Stokols et al., 2008a; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018), and prior work experiences outside academia also benefit IDR engagement (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Woolley et al., 2015; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Tebes and Thai 2018).

Regarding demographics, there is evidence that researchers with dual citizenship and broader cultural backgrounds (Woolley et al., 2015) engage more in IDR Woolley et al., (2015) find that—for the social sciences—men and women tend to collaborate with other disciplines to a similar degree. However, there are also indications that women engage more in IDR (Katoh, Aalbers, and Sengoku 2021). Women tend to collaborate more with researchers outside their own field than within their discipline (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014), potentially because IDR collaborations help mitigate the gender imbalance, which poses a common disciplinary disadvantage for academic careers (Woolley et al., 2015).

As for the second dimension, IDR is possible at all career levels (Leahey 2016), especially when personal development and career support are provided. Specifically, this means social, cultural, and economic support (Spence, Markauskaite, and McEwen 2024). However, several studies show that individual researchers engage more in IDR as their careers progress (Lee and Bozeman 2005; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Murgia 2014; Graff 2016; Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023). PhD students tend to engage less in IDR (Carayol and Thi 2005; Bonaccorsi, Melluso, and Massucci 2022; Casas-Mulet et al., 2023). This can be explained by the fact that engaging in IDR is much riskier for early-stage researchers (McLeish and Strang 2016; Vantard, Galland, and Knoop 2023) due to unclear career structures for interdisciplinary researchers (Woolley et al., 2015; Ylijoki 2022). Although IDR is often seen as an advantage during the recruitment process (Christ et al., 2024), professorships are still mainly defined by single disciplines, which makes it difficult for young researchers to decide on an interdisciplinary career (Schmitt et al., 2023).

In contrast, working within one discipline provides early-stage researchers with more guidance and more comprehensible career trajectories (Laudel 2001; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; McLeish and Strang 2016). This, in turn, is less relevant for established researchers with permanent positions. Furthermore, early-stage researchers, still in search of their academic identity, are at risk of “being swamped by expectations” (Woolley et al., 2015: 4). They also face challenges in getting involved in IDR projects, as they lack an extensive network, publication history (Bridle 2018) and appropriate preparation to engage in IDR (Moore et al., 2018). The tendency towards less IDR (Carayol and Thi 2005; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Leahey, Beckman, and Stanko 2017) and the risks of IDR for early career researchers are often discussed (Stokols et al., 2008b; Graff 2016; Leahey 2016; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018; Pluchino et al., 2019; Weber and Syed 2019). However, opposing observations have also been made: early-stage researchers can benefit from IDR, as more diverse networks can be acquired (Rotolo and Messeni Petruzzelli 2013), and communication skills can be developed more intensely. This, in turn, can lead to more confidence and enhanced collaborative working skills (Bridle 2018). Knowledge of IDR is rarely obtained explicitly through academic courses or degrees but is mostly acquired through practical experience (Sanz-Menéndez, Bordons, and Zulueta 2001).

6. How do I work with “them”? Enabling interdisciplinary collaboration

In general, researchers show a tendency to prefer working with like-minded people who are ideally geographically close, as coordination and communication efforts increase with distance (Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018; Lanier et al., 2018). Important foundations of collaboration such as trust are more difficult to develop when teams lack a common language, informal communication, and physical proximity (Aicardi and Mahfoud 2024). Interdisciplinary work between researchers from different academic fields poses challenges, as it requires intense knowledge sharing (Haythornthwaite 2006; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022). This is especially difficult when researchers lack an understanding of other disciplines or have misconceptions about their ways of working (Priaulx and Weinel 2018). The review shows the crucial importance of communication, proximity, trust, and a mutual understanding for the success of IDR projects.

Communication plays a pivotal role in IDR (Aboelela et al., 2007; Bridle 2018), with more intensive communication being linked to research success (Haythornthwaite 2006; Aboelela et al., 2007; Stokols et al., 2008b). In IDR projects, communication can be especially tough because it involves different levels (like individuals, teams, and organizations), various practices and processes, different types of content and contexts, and various tools and objects (Teixeira De Melo 2023). Teams must put effort into the development of proper communication and set appropriate rules (Oliver et al., 2018). It is important to recognize that diverse teams have a greater potential for internal conflict (Brink et al., 2018; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018), and effectively managing these conflicts play a crucial role in the success of IDR teams. To address this, involving integration experts can facilitate better collaborative dialogue (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Social interactions, especially face-to-face, are crucial for effective communication (Stokols et al., 2008b), as they enable deep knowledge sharing (Fitzgerald et al., 2018; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018; Lanier et al., 2018). Furthermore, face-to-face interactions allow for the development of trust among collaboration partners (Laudel 2001; Stokols et al., 2008b; Holmes et al., 2018; Haman and Hertzum 2019; Stephens and Stephens 2021); intensive and honest communication (Stokols et al., 2008b; Hessels, Jong, and Brouwer 2018); and spontaneous (Undurraga et al., 2023) and informal communication (Fagan et al., 2018; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018; Aicardi and Mahfoud 2024). Even if technology can benefit the overall communication and knowledge-sharing process (Scanlon and Conole 2018; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022)—for instance, written formats like team-wide emails that allow for reflection and documentation (Holmes et al., 2018; Haman and Hertzum 2019), the importance of regular face-to-face contact in IDR teams remains (Stokols et al., 2008b; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Murgia 2013; Holmes et al., 2018; Kaygan and Aydınoğlu 2018; Abramo, D’Angelo, and Di Costa 2019; Hesjedal 2023).

Physical proximity is another factor of IDR success (Lee and Bozeman 2005; Leone Sciabolazza et al., 2017; Kaygan and Aydınoğlu 2018; Haman and Hertzum 2019), with colleagues working on the same floor showing the greatest chances of succeeding (Leone Sciabolazza et al., 2017; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022). This positive impact of proximity can be explained by informal communication, which can lead to novel research ideas (Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018; Aicardi and Mahfoud 2024) and lower coordination costs compared to physically distant teams (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Lanier et al., 2018; Haman and Hertzum 2019). This is especially the case for highly interdependent tasks, which typically have a particular need for communication and coordination (Lanier et al., 2018). Conversely, the likelihood of researchers working together on IDR projects is negatively impacted by national borders (Bergé 2017) and differences in time zones (Stokols et al., 2008b). Regardless of how interactions are organized, it is crucial for the success of IDR projects that a “safe space” is established in which team members have equal power (Gohar et al., 2019), can speak freely (Holmes et al., 2018), and receive both feedback and support (Brink et al., 2018).

Trust among researchers working together hugely affects IDR project success (Aboelela et al., 2007; Bridle 2018; Stephens and Stephens 2021; Hesjedal 2023; Woodworth et al., 2023), and this effect becomes even more prevalent for teams with more than two members (Scanlon and Conole 2018). Only when trust is established researchers freely share knowledge (Gonzalez-Brambila, Veloso, and Krackhardt 2013), which has positive effects on team creativity and leads to higher-impact publications (Oliver et al., 2018). Trust is undermined by conflict (Stokols et al., 2008a; Haman and Hertzum 2019) and a lack of mutual understanding, for instance, with regard to theoretical or methodological considerations (MacLeod 2018). To manage these conflicts, teams should balance the interests of colleagues from different fields and discuss key topics, such as publication strategies, early in the project (Wudarczyk et al., 2021). Additionally, strong interpersonal relationships, considering both individual differences and similarities, are crucial in interdisciplinary groups (Ryymin and Lamberg 2022).

A lack of mutual understanding can often be explained by the absence of a common language (Aboelela et al., 2007; Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016; Holmes et al., 2018; Igel et al., 2018; Scanlon and Conole 2018; Wudarczyk et al., 2021; Russell 2022; Scharff and Stone 2022). Education in different disciplines, and thus different epistemic systems, teach researchers to speak very specific academic languages (Leahey 2016; Tobi and Kampen 2018; Halfon and Sovacool 2023; Eigi-Watkin et al., 2024). As these language differences are often tacit, it is difficult to be aware of them and to discuss them directly with colleagues in an IDR project (Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016).

However, the way researchers are socialized by their own discipline influences more than language. Their “home discipline” provides them with a specific point of view (Alvargonzález 2011; Boon and van Baalen 2019), standard practices, typical styles of thought (Abramo, D’Angelo, and Zhang 2018), appropriate units of analysis (Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016), and assumptions and evaluation criteria of what “good research” looks like (Carayol and Thi 2005; Alvargonzález 2011; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Eigi-Watkin et al., 2024).

A lack of mutual understanding may arise from differing methodological approaches, such as those between qualitative methods and data science. While qualitative methods emphasize nuance and complexity, data science often values simplicity and abstraction. These differing values can lead to tensions within interdisciplinary teams (Moats 2020). This reinforces an us (one’s own discipline) versus them (other disciplines) thinking (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Holmes et al., 2018). What makes it even more difficult is that assumptions of what “good research” looks like are rather tacit (Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016) and thus difficult to detect. Collaborators tend to talk past each other, especially when no explicit effort is made to establish common ground (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014). A great deal of negotiation and compromise is required to overcome such fundamental differences (Klein 2008; Horn, Urias, and Zweekhorst 2022a), which otherwise foster mistrust (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014) or reinforce the logic of a dominant discipline in a given project (Mazzocchi 2019). To address these challenges, Haythornthwaite (2006) recommends openly confronting epistemic differences and fostering a shared understanding of “who knows what” (p. 2). Sharing tacit knowledge, however, can be particularly difficult (Stephens and Stephens 2021). In this context, Ryymin and Lamberg (2022) highlight the importance of facilitating collaborative group work and creating effective team processes. They also highlight the need for additional resources in research planning and team learning—collectively acquiring, sharing, and applying knowledge to achieve common goals. Holmes et al. (2018) suggest workshops as an appropriate method to define the language of a project. Within these workshops, each team member should present their own perspective on common project goals and their individual intentions.

Another crucial aspect of achieving successful interdisciplinary integration is effective leadership. Each field involved in an interdisciplinary project brings unique expertise that contributes to the overall effort. The true strength of IDR lies in how these diverse inputs are combined to tackle the problem at hand. Interdisciplinary leaders can help to facilitate contributions from each area of expertise and promote a robust interdisciplinary synthesis (Morss, Lazrus, and Demuth 2021). Understanding and aligning different perspectives hold the potential to rally the team behind an interdisciplinary project idea (Wudarczyk et al., 2021) and to create professional norms to support the inclusion and contribution of researchers from diverse disciplines, especially those on the periphery (Pimentel, Cho, and Bothello 2023). Furthermore, an atmosphere of appreciation for IDR work and social support (e.g. recognition, affiliation, and instrumental assistance) by supervisors and colleagues are important (Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022). Although examining epistemological differences may seem laborious at first, it yields clear positive effects. For example, Choi and Pak (2008) explain that aligning diverse disciplines tends to result in more creative research outcomes.

7. What am I getting myself into? Challenges for IDR researchers

Engaging in interdisciplinary research involves various challenges arising from both the inherent complexities of IDR and the institutional conditions and support provided to researchers.

The first challenge for IDR projects is the lack of a common understanding of IDR itself (Boix Mansilla 2006; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Graff 2016). This often leads to situations in which it is unclear what is achievable in a given project (Graff 2016; Muzur 2018; Priaulx and Weinel 2018; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018). This vagueness can curb the motivation of the involved researchers and is further compounded by the epistemic and social organization of science, which often operates within paradigms and specialized communities, creating barriers for researchers who aim to transcend these established boundaries (Bonaccorsi, Melluso, and Massucci 2022). In general, IDR requires more time than disciplinary research (Campbell 2005; Nastar, Boda, and Olsson 2018; Priaulx and Weinel 2018; Gibson et al., 2019; Vantard, Galland, and Knoop 2023; Zhang, Xu, and Huang 2023). This is partly due to the extra effort needed to familiarize oneself with the thematic scope of at least one other discipline (Boix Mansilla 2006; Vugteveen, Lenders, and van den Besselaar 2014; Bromham, Dinnage, and Hua 2016; Bridle 2018; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018).

Incorporating and integrating methods, perspectives, and assumptions from other disciplines into one’s own research can be challenging (Stokols et al., 2008b; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Rafols et al., 2012; Andersen 2016; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018). Mäkinen, Evans, and McFarland (2024) indicating that interdisciplinary researchers tend to experience role strain and excessive workloads. Metacognition (thinking about thinking) is therefore recommended for identifying what facilitates and hinders the integration of different disciplinary perspectives. Additionally, metacognition can help overcome disciplinary barriers by addressing cognitive strengths and weaknesses both individually and within teams (Ganapati and Mostafavi 2021).

Institutional conditions also pose challenges, especially due to the lack of support from research organizations. A key issue is a discrepancy between formal and informal infrastructures, where institutional barriers can hinder collaboration by making certain types of knowledge invisible or difficult to integrate (Aicardi and Mahfoud 2024). This often occurs when organizations are designed to support disciplinary research (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Valentin, Norn, and Alkaersig 2016; Pimentel, Cho, and Bothello 2023). For example, the absence of interdisciplinary academic departments forces early-career researchers to navigate a complex array of course offerings and research opportunities across disciplines, impeding their ability to develop interdisciplinary expertise (Casas-Mulet et al., 2023). Additionally, universities are typically organized by disciplines rather than by application areas, which creates further difficulties for interdisciplinary groups as these structures resist necessary changes to accommodate IDR (Ylijoki 2022). A typical example is the spatial proximity of academic fields within universities, making it difficult to manage an IDR project with a team scattered across buildings or even campuses (Leone Sciabolazza et al., 2017). “Centers” are frequently mentioned as a feasible way to better support IDR (Sá 2008; Biancani et al., 2018; Hellström, Brattström, and Jabrane 2018). A center is typically organized around a joint research topic rather than disciplinary traditions (e.g. Center for Digital Aging versus Department of Sociology). However, even when working within centers, it remains a challenge to assess output quality as the involved disciplines typically have varying opinions on what constitutes “good research” (Biancani et al., 2018). This leads to situations where research organizations with a high degree of quality control engage less in IDR (Engwall 2018).

The inability to adequately assess the potential and the output of IDR is also evident from a reviewer's perspective in grant applications (Sá 2008) and manuscript submissions (Campbell 2005). Reviewers are predominantly researchers who are typically trained within a single discipline. Consequently, they often struggle to accurately assess the value of interdisciplinary work. Additionally, there is a lack of reputable IDR journals (Campbell 2005). As a result, IDR results are often published in disciplinary journals, which creates difficulties in finding the right audience, balancing contributions from the involved fields, and convincing the journal to publish the work in the first place (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014).

Overall, explicit support from institutions is critical for successful IDR (Aboelela et al., 2007; Shellock et al., 2022; Spence, Markauskaite, and McEwen 2024). However, it is criticized that this support is virtually insufficient at all levels (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011), from governments (Renwick 2016) to universities (Gibson et al., 2019; Ganapati and Mostafavi 2021), to faculty heads (Ribeiro 2016), to academic leadership, evaluation, bureaucracy (Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023), and education (Sá 2008; Stokols et al., 2008a). Moreover, the challenges of institutional support are amplified by traditional academic departments playing a key role in shaping faculty identities and socialization, with many faculty members still maintaining strong disciplinary identities even within interdisciplinary research organizations (Simula and Scott 2021). Additionally, researchers also struggle to get proper support elsewhere as there is often no organized community for their specific IDR project topics (Bammer 2017). Researchers can often choose collaborators themselves, which can be helpful for the success of overall IDR projects (Kumar 2015). However, collaborators are often chosen through informal connections, which typically exist within formal research communities (Kaygan and Aydınoğlu 2018; Lanier et al., 2018). It is, therefore, a challenge to find the right person from a different field to collaborate with. As a consequence, researchers tend to target renowned academics when searching for collaborators (Abramo, D’Angelo, and Murgia 2013).

Another challenge that IDR researchers typically face is a lack of support from colleagues. The reason is that many researchers either have an insufficient understanding of IDR (Wang, Notten, and Surpatean 2013; Wowk et al., 2017; Mazzocchi 2019; Weber and Syed 2019), or their own disciplinary culture is strongly developed (Shellock et al., 2022; Halfon and Sovacool 2023; Shah et al., 2023), leading to a lack of appreciation for this type of research (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Hall et al., 2008). These challenges are even more pronounced when considering that academic reward systems tend to favor disciplinary research over interdisciplinary efforts (Ylijoki 2022). This preference reinforces the dominance of “academic tribes” that protect their disciplinary interests and maintain control over key decisions such as recruitment. Consequently, faculty members involved in hiring or promotion practices tend to reinforce existing disciplinary norms, thereby marginalizing interdisciplinary research (Mäkinen, Evans, and McFarland 2024). This is seen, for example, in the reluctance to recognize IDR results (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011), lower career advancement opportunities (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014), and less recognition of expert knowledge for interdisciplinary researchers (Sclater and Lally 2018; Weber and Syed 2019), even though they offer significant public benefits as they often research complex problems or emerging phenomena (Fontana et al., 2022). Furthermore, interdisciplinary researchers must balance the expectations of their disciplinary colleagues with those of their interdisciplinary peers. This can lead to publishing in both disciplinary and interdisciplinary journals, resulting in less recognition from both sides (Vantard, Galland, and Knoop 2023).

There has been a noticeable increase in funding opportunities for IDR in recent years (Sá 2008; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Engwall 2018). Some funding forms privilege IDR, such as federal funding in the USA (Sá 2008). For other funding, IDR is even mandatory (Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; Ylijoki 2022). This is in line with many sources arguing for better funding opportunities for IDR (Carayol and Thi 2005; Wang, Thijs, and Glänzel 2015; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015). Additionally, interdisciplinary proposals tend to attract higher budgets (Bellotti, Kronegger, and Guadalupi 2016; Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016; Biancani et al., 2018). However, there is still a strong tendency for research funding to focus on disciplinary excellence (McLeish and Strang 2016; Christensen et al., 2021), making it difficult for researchers to find suitable funding that matches their specific IDR needs (Bromham, Dinnage, and Hua 2016; Kwon et al., 2017). Furthermore, evaluating IDR funding proposals is complicated, as broader expertise is necessary (McLeish and Strang 2016; Wowk et al., 2017; Weber and Syed 2019), which increases the subjectivity of funding decisions (Boix Mansilla, Lamont, and Sato 2016) and leads to overall lower success rates for IDR proposals (Weber and Syed 2019). This trend is further amplified when funding schemes are not adaptable enough to accommodate the novel ideas that emerge from interdisciplinary discussions (Norton, Sonetti, and Sarrica 2023). Short-term project funding also presents challenges, as it incentivizes quick solutions rather than the slower, more integrative approaches that interdisciplinary work typically requires (Reijula, Kuorikoski, and MacLeod 2023).

The literature has indicated many ideas for addressing the challenges associated with IDR. A typical starting point is assembling a diverse team, including academics with different experiences from various research fields (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015), women (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011), researchers with broader cultural backgrounds (Woolley et al., 2015), or with work experiences outside of academia (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Woolley et al., 2015; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015). Intensive knowledge exchange is key to the productivity of such a diverse team (Stokols et al., 2008b; Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015), with dedicated roles to overcome disciplinary boundaries (Priaulx and Weinel 2018), the establishment of a common terminology as well as structures to transfer and save the project know-how for the future (Wudarczyk et al., 2021). IDR teams furthermore benefit from explicit training and activities interconnecting different disciplinary perspectives (Stokols et al., 2008a; Moore et al., 2018; Muzur 2018; Oliver et al., 2018; Riedy et al., 2018), flat-team structures (Oliver et al. 2018), and informal relationships (Stokols et al., 2008b; Gibson et al., 2019; Vanney et al., 2023; Aicardi and Mahfoud 2024).

This is best embedded in an IDR-supporting culture (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Graff 2016; Krause-Jüttler, Weitz, and Bork 2022), which appreciates researchers allocating their time and resources to IDR (Bordons et al., 1999; Brink et al., 2018; Muzur 2018). Zhao and Tsatsou (2018) emphasize the importance of research communities, suggesting that institutions should promote informal collaboration, knowledge sharing, and experience sharing. By supporting and encouraging bottom-up initiatives, research institutions can help bring together researchers from different disciplines, fostering openness and dialogue among them. An IDR-supporting culture further needs to specifically provide funding (Yegros-Yegros, Rafols, and D’Este 2015; Brink et al., 2018), especially long-term (Brink et al., 2018). By and large, this requires changes in the scientific system (Muzur 2018): more time for formal and informal exchanges between researchers, long-term support for IDR projects (Brink et al., 2018), better instruments and methods to evaluate IDR, in particular in performance evaluation and the appointment of academic staff (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011; Zaiț et al., 2021), and more research on how to best design IDR projects to improve the interdisciplinary problem-solving abilities of individual academics (Caner et al., 2024). Lastly, the growing interest in IDR is likely to lead to enhanced training and greater experience for those involved. This could, in turn, reduce the challenges currently associated with IDR over time.

8. So, what should researchers do with all this information?

We embarked on a mission to structure the IDR literature based on four questions typically posed by IDR-curious researchers. Our paper explored the nature of IDR, its potential applications, its (ideal) candidates, the mechanisms facilitating collaborations, and the inherent challenges. In this endeavor, our aim was to provide an overview, connecting researchers interested in IDR with the vast and dispersed literature on IDR. As we approach the conclusion of this paper, the question arises: What should researchers now do with all this information? In the course of our review, two recurrent themes emerged, which will serve as the foundation for the latter sections of this paper.

• – Ambiguity: The literature consistently highlights that IDR introduces unique forms of ambiguity.

• – Complexity: Initiating, conducting, and presenting IDR results involve complex and multifaceted processes.

Addressing these two themes separately seems prudent. Ambiguities, by their nature, cannot be entirely resolved. Regardless of how well-prepared one might be, certain ambiguities persist. As an IDR-curious researcher, it is crucial to recognize these inherent ambiguities. Specifically, we have identified three distinct types of ambiguity in the literature, which will be detailed in the following sections. By highlighting these ambiguities, we hope to provide researchers with a clearer understanding of their chosen path, thereby enabling them to navigate it more effectively. Alongside these inherent ambiguities, IDR also showcases a distinct complexity. However, unlike ambiguity, researchers can proactively address this complexity. To aid in this endeavor, we’ve distilled our findings into self-reflective questions. These are not prescriptive steps directing researchers on their workflow. Instead, these questions aim to encapsulate the holistic challenges of IDR.

• Ambiguous timing: There’s no perfect moment for IDR

The literature suggests that there is no ideal moment to venture into IDR. Initiating IDR early, such as during a PhD, diverts a researcher from the traditional disciplinary career trajectory (Laudel 2001; Carayol and Thi 2005; Siedlok and Hibbert 2014; McLeish and Strang 2016). Consequently, these researchers might progress more slowly than their peers and also face challenges in publishing their findings. Achieving prominence in their home discipline becomes less probable. However, an early start in IDR offers advantages like the opportunity to build expansive networks (Rotolo and Messeni Petruzzelli 2013), cultivate a comprehensive grasp of academic research (Bridle 2018), and tackle novel, intricate topics from the outset. On the flip side, entering IDR after establishing oneself in a field provides the advantage of an already-established reputation. However, after years in a specific research area, adapting to new methods and embracing different disciplines can pose challenges (Alvargonzález 2011; Boon and van Baalen 2019). For such researchers, deviating from the research methods they have practiced for years and adapting to the varied approaches and techniques of other disciplines can be particularly challenging.

• Ambiguous risk profile: the unpredictability of IDR’s value

The discourse on IDR oscillates between its inherent risks and potential rewards. IDR offers a unique opportunity to amplify research impact by generating groundbreaking insights (Van den Besselaar and Heimeriks 2001; Decker, Campbell, and Braunstein 2018; Dürfeld et al., 2018; Chang 2018). However, its unpredictable outcomes introduce significant uncertainty. The difficulty in finding prestigious outlets for interdisciplinary research sometimes leads researchers to publish in lesser-known journals (Weber and Syed 2019) or forces them to adapt their findings to fit within an established discipline (Scanlon and Conole 2018). Ultimately, while the potential rewards of IDR are enticing, the ambiguity in assessing its true value persists amid these challenges.

• Ambiguous research direction: clarity in project identity often only emerges in hindsight

Given that interdisciplinary collaboration and its workflow are not standard elements of methodological training in most academic programs, IDR largely operates on a learning-by-doing approach. In IDR projects, researchers from diverse backgrounds converge, each bringing distinct objectives and perspectives. Collectively, they navigate the project’s direction, often determining the course as they progress. This dynamic means those intrigued by IDR must grapple with the ambiguity of their endeavor, often only gaining clarity about their project’s nature and outcomes well into the process (e.g. Graff 2016; Muzur 2018; Priaulx and Weinel 2018; Zhao and Tsatsou 2018). In this ever-evolving terrain, interdisciplinary researchers must possess patience and adaptability, as the direction of their research often becomes clear only upon reflection long after the work has begun.

8.1 Complexity in action: self-reflection for interdisciplinary researchers

Entering the domain of IDR can be an overwhelming experience, given its multifaceted nature (McLeish and Strang 2016; MacLeod 2018; Gibson et al., 2019). In response to this complexity, we have synthesized our literature review into approachable segments for self-reflection. The questions we suggest are categorized under two distinct perspectives that emerged during our review: “Me and IDR” and “We and IDR.” These questions are intended to help researchers gain a clearer perspective on the nuances and demands of the IDR process. Answering these questions with “no” does not imply that we recommend disregarding IDR. Instead, the questions are designed to identify potential challenges for researchers and highlight aspects of interdisciplinary work that require close attention.

“Me and IDR” is an introspective perspective where the researchers delve into their own motivations for considering IDR. It asks pertinent questions about the urge to address multifaceted research problems, the motivation to engage with other fields, theories, methods, and the necessity of incorporating perspectives from diverse disciplines for the evolution of one’s own field. This theme further assesses the readiness of the researcher for IDR. Is the researcher prepared, both mentally and skillfully, to dive into the challenges that IDR holds? And importantly, what are the unique aspects of the researcher’s home discipline that will shape their IDR experience? Overall, we distilled nine self-reflective questions, presented in Table 1.

Transitioning from the self to the group, “We and IDR” turns the spotlight onto the collaborative dynamics integral to IDR. It emphasizes the pivotal role of teamwork, understanding the intricacies of team members, securing support for the collaborative journey, and meticulously orchestrating the interdisciplinary venture. Are researchers adept at decoding the nuances of their collaborators? Is there a system in place to support the challenges unique to IDR? And crucially, have researchers and their teams established a roadmap for their joint IDR venture, encompassing open communication, shared objectives, and a mutual learning mindset? We also distilled nine self-reflective questions for the perspective “We and IDR”. They are presented in Table 2.

In this review, we delved into four pressing questions that researchers frequently grapple with concerning IDR: Why do it? Is it right for me? How can I work with “them?” And what am I getting myself into? Our deep dive into existing studies reveals that there are no universal answers to these inquiries.

We have identified three irresolvable ambiguities inherent to IDR: the unpredictable nature of its timing, the ambiguity surrounding a project’s exact identity, and the fact that its value cannot be predetermined. While these ambiguities are inherent to IDR, other facets of interdisciplinary endeavors can be more readily addressed by the researchers involved. For these aspects, we offer a set of guiding self-reflection questions. These are crafted to equip researchers with a clearer understanding and navigation strategy for the intricate realm of IDR. It is crucial to perceive these complexities not as individual inadequacies but as inherent features of the interdisciplinary approach.

As we move towards a landscape where IDR is increasingly mainstream, the implications of our findings extend to educational and research institutions. There is a growing imperative for the development of interdisciplinary curricula, research employment strategies, and fostering supportive academic environments. While IDR presents a myriad of challenges, the rewards it offers—both for the individual scholar and the broader research ecosystem—are invaluable. Consequently, honing the skills required for effective IDR is essential to tackle the nuanced and multifaceted research questions that define our era.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Clarissa Elisa Walter, Laura von Welczeck, Kira Lehmann, and Gabriel Menzinger for their help during the coding process. However, the authors bear full responsibility for the paper.

Supplementary data

Supplementary data is available at SCIPOL online.

Conflict of interest statement.

None declared.

Funding

This work has been funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) under grant nos 16DII131, 16DII133, and 16DII137 (‘Deutsches Internet-Institut’).

Data availability

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material. Further data will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References