interdisciplinary research projects

Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework

• Open access
• Published: 27 April 2017
• Volume 52 , pages 1209–1225, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Hilde Tobi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8804-0298 1 &
• Jarl K. Kampen 1 , 2  

92k Accesses

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many of today’s global scientific challenges require the joint involvement of researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds (social sciences, environmental sciences, climatology, medicine, etc.). Such interdisciplinary research teams face many challenges resulting from differences in training and scientific culture. Interdisciplinary education programs are required to train truly interdisciplinary scientists with respect to the critical factor skills and competences. For that purpose this paper presents the Methodology for Interdisciplinary Research (MIR) framework. The MIR framework was developed to help cross disciplinary borders, especially those between the natural sciences and the social sciences. The framework has been specifically constructed to facilitate the design of interdisciplinary scientific research, and can be applied in an educational program, as a reference for monitoring the phases of interdisciplinary research, and as a tool to design such research in a process approach. It is suitable for research projects of different sizes and levels of complexity, and it allows for a range of methods’ combinations (case study, mixed methods, etc.). The different phases of designing interdisciplinary research in the MIR framework are described and illustrated by real-life applications in teaching and research. We further discuss the framework’s utility in research design in landscape architecture, mixed methods research, and provide an outlook to the framework’s potential in inclusive interdisciplinary research, and last but not least, research integrity.

Similar content being viewed by others

Designing an Interdisciplinary Research Culture in Higher Education: A Case Study

A practical guideline how to tackle interdisciplinarity—A synthesis from a post-graduate group project

Participatory Approaches to Curriculum Design From a Design Research Perspective

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Current challenges, e.g., energy, water, food security, one world health and urbanization, involve the interaction between humans and their environment. A (mono)disciplinary approach, be it a psychological, economical or technical one, is too limited to capture any one of these challenges. The study of the interaction between humans and their environment requires knowledge, ideas and research methodology from different disciplines (e.g., ecology or chemistry in the natural sciences, psychology or economy in the social sciences). So collaboration between natural and social sciences is called for (Walsh et al. 1975 ).

Over the past decades, different forms of collaboration have been distinguished although the terminology used is diverse and ambiguous. For the present paper, the term interdisciplinary research is used for (Aboelela et al. 2007 , p. 341):

any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. The research is based upon a conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those disciplines, uses study design and methodology that is not limited to any one field, and requires the use of perspectives and skills of the involved disciplines throughout multiple phases of the research process.

Scientific disciplines (e.g., ecology, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, economy, philosophy, linguistics, etc.) are categorized into distinct scientific cultures: the natural sciences, the social sciences and the humanities (Kagan 2009 ). Interdisciplinary research may involve different disciplines within a single scientific culture, and it can also cross cultural boundaries as in the study of humans and their environment.

A systematic review of the literature on natural-social science collaboration (Fischer et al. 2011 ) confirmed the general impression of this collaboration to be a challenge. The nearly 100 papers in their analytic set mentioned more instances of barriers than of opportunities (72 and 46, respectively). Four critical factors for success or failure in natural-social science collaboration were identified: the paradigms or epistemologies in the current (mono-disciplinary) sciences, the skills and competences of the scientists involved, the institutional context of the research, and the organization of collaborations (Fischer et al. 2011 ). The so-called “paradigm war” between neopositivist versus constructivists within the social and behavioral sciences (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005 ) may complicate pragmatic collaboration further.

It has been argued that interdisciplinary education programs are required to train truly interdisciplinary scientists with respect to the critical factor skills and competences (Frischknecht 2000 ) and accordingly, some interdisciplinary programs have been developed since (Baker and Little 2006 ; Spelt et al. 2009 ). The overall effect of interdisciplinary programs can be expected to be small as most programs are mono-disciplinary and based on a single paradigm (positivist-constructivist, qualitative-quantitative; see e.g., Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005 ). We saw in our methodology teaching, consultancy and research practices working with heterogeneous groups of students and staff, that most had received mono-disciplinary training with a minority that had received multidisciplinary training, with few exceptions within the same paradigm. During our teaching and consultancy for heterogeneous groups of students and staff aimed at designing interdisciplinary research, we built the framework for methodology in interdisciplinary research (MIR). With the MIR framework, we aspire to contribute to the critical factors skills and competences (Fischer et al. 2011 ) for social and natural sciences collaboration. Note that the scale of interdisciplinary research projects we have in mind may vary from comparably modest ones (e.g., finding a link between noise reducing asphalt and quality of life; Vuye et al. 2016 ) to very large projects (finding a link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and food security; IPCC 2015 ).

In the following section of this paper we describe the MIR framework and elaborate on its components. The third section gives two examples of the application of the MIR framework. The paper concludes with a discussion of the MIR framework in the broader contexts of mixed methods research, inclusive research, and other promising strains of research.

2 The methodology in interdisciplinary research framework

2.1 research as a process in the methodology in interdisciplinary research framework.

The Methodology for Interdisciplinary Research (MIR) framework was built on the process approach (Kumar 1999 ), because in the process approach, the research question or hypothesis is leading for all decisions in the various stages of research. That means that it helps the MIR framework to put the common goal of the researchers at the center, instead of the diversity of their respective backgrounds. The MIR framework also introduces an agenda: the research team needs to carefully think through different parts of the design of their study before starting its execution (Fig.  1 ). First, the team discusses the conceptual design of their study which contains the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of the research. Second, the team discusses the technical design of the study which contains the ‘how’ of the research. Only after the team agrees that the complete research design is sufficiently crystalized, the execution of the work (including fieldwork) starts.

The Methodology of Interdisciplinary Research framework

Whereas the conceptual and technical designs are by definition interdisciplinary team work, the respective team members may do their (mono)disciplinary parts of fieldwork and data analysis on a modular basis (see Bruns et al. 2017 : p. 21). Finally, when all evidence is collected, an interdisciplinary synthesis of analyses follows which conclusions are input for the final report. This implies that the MIR framework allows for a range of scales of research projects, e.g., a mixed methods project and its smaller qualitative and quantitative modules, or a multi-national sustainability project and its national sociological, economic and ecological modules.

2.2 The conceptual design

Interdisciplinary research design starts with the “conceptual design” which addresses the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of a research project at a conceptual level to ascertain the common goals pivotal to interdisciplinary collaboration (Fischer et al. 2011 ). The conceptual design includes mostly activities such as thinking, exchanging interdisciplinary knowledge, reading and discussing. The product of the conceptual design is called the “conceptual frame work” which comprises of the research objective (what is to be achieved by the research), the theory or theories that are central in the research project, the research questions (what knowledge is to be produced), and the (partial) operationalization of constructs and concepts that will be measured or recorded during execution. While the members of the interdisciplinary team and the commissioner of the research must reach a consensus about the research objective, the ‘why’, the focus in research design must be the production of the knowledge required to achieve that objective the ‘what’.

With respect to the ‘why’ of a research project, an interdisciplinary team typically starts with a general aim as requested by the commissioner or funding agency, and a set of theories to formulate a research objective. This role of theory is not always obvious to students from the natural sciences, who tend to think in terms of ‘models’ with directly observable variables. On the other hand, students from the social sciences tend to think in theories with little attention to observable variables. In the MIR framework, models as simplified descriptions or explanations of what is studied in the natural sciences play the same role in informing research design, raising research questions, and informing how a concept is understood, as do theories in social science.

Research questions concern concepts, i.e. general notions or ideas based on theory or common sense that are multifaceted and not directly visible or measurable. For example, neither food security (with its many different facets) nor a person’s attitude towards food storage may be directly observed. The operationalization of concepts, the transformation of concepts into observable indicators, in interdisciplinary research requires multiple steps, each informed by theory. For instance, in line with particular theoretical frameworks, sustainability and food security may be seen as the composite of a social, an economic and an ecological dimension (e.g., Godfray et al. 2010 ).

As the concept of interest is multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional, the interdisciplinary team will need to read, discuss and decide on how these dimensions and their indicators are weighted to measure the composite interdisciplinary concept to get the required interdisciplinary measurements. The resulting measure or measures for the interdisciplinary concept may be of the nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio level, or a combination thereof. This operationalization procedure is known as the port-folio approach to widely defined measurements (Tobi 2014 ). Only after the research team has finalized the operationalization of the concepts under study, the research questions and hypotheses can be made operational. For example, a module with descriptive research questions may now be turned into an operational one like, what are the means and variances of X1, X2, and X3 in a given population? A causal research question may take on the form, is X (a composite of X1, X2 and X3) a plausible cause for the presence or absence of Y? A typical qualitative module could study, how do people talk about X1, X2 and X3 in their everyday lives?

2.3 The technical design

Members of an interdisciplinary team usually have had different training with respect to research methods, which makes discussing and deciding on the technical design more challenging but also potentially more creative than in a mono-disciplinary team. The technical design addresses the issues ‘how, where and when will research units be studied’ (study design), ‘how will measurement proceed’ (instrument selection or design), ‘how and how many research units will be recruited’ (sampling plan), and ‘how will collected data be analyzed and synthesized’ (analysis plan). The MIR framework provides the team a set of topics and their relationships to one another and to generally accepted quality criteria (see Fig.  1 ), which helps in designing this part of the project.

Interdisciplinary teams need be pragmatic as the research questions agreed on are leading in decisions on the data collection set-up (e.g., a cross-sectional study of inhabitants of a region, a laboratory experiment, a cohort study, a case control study, etc.), the so-called “study design” (e.g., Kumar 2014 ; De Vaus 2001 ; Adler and Clark 2011 ; Tobi and van den Brink 2017 ) instead of traditional ‘pet’ approaches. Typical study designs for descriptive research questions and research questions on associations are the cross-sectional study design. Longitudinal study designs are required to investigate development over time and cause-effect relationships ideally are studied in experiments (e.g., Kumar 2014 ; Shipley 2016 ). Phenomenological questions concern a phenomenon about which little is known and which has to be studied in the environment where it takes place, which calls for a case study design (e.g., Adler and Clark 2011 : p. 178). For each module, the study design is to be further explicated by the number of data collection waves, the level of control by the researcher and its reference period (e.g., Kumar 2014 ) to ensure the teams common understanding.

Then, decisions about the way data is to be collected, e.g., by means of certified instruments, observation, interviews, questionnaires, queries on existing data bases, or a combination of these are to be made. It is especially important to discuss the role of the observer (researcher) as this is often a source of misunderstanding in interdisciplinary teams. In the sciences, the observer is usually considered a neutral outsider when reading a standardized measurement instrument (e.g., a pyranometer to measure incoming solar radiation). In contrast, in the social sciences, the observer may be (part of) the measurement instrument, for example in participant observation or when doing in-depth interviews. After all, in participant observation the researcher observes from a member’s perspective and influences what is observed owing to the researcher’s participation (Flick 2006 : p. 220). Similarly in interviews, by which we mean “a conversation that has a structure and a purpose determined by the one party—the interviewer” (Kvale 2007 : p. 7), the interviewer and the interviewee are part of the measurement instrument (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009 : p. 2). In on-line and mail questionnaires the interviewer is eliminated as part of the instrument by standardizing the questions and answer options. Queries on existing data bases refer to the use of secondary data or secondary analysis. Different disciplines tend to use different bibliographic data bases (e.g., CAB Abstracts, ABI/INFORM or ERIC) and different data repositories (e.g., the European Social Survey at europeansocialsurvey.org or the International Council for Science data repository hosted by www.pangaea.de ).

Depending on whether or not the available, existing, measurement instruments tally with the interdisciplinary operationalisations from the conceptual design, the research team may or may not need to design instruments. Note that in some cases the social scientists’ instinct may be to rely on a questionnaire whereas the collaboration with another discipline may result in more objective possibilities (e.g., compare asking people about what they do with surplus medication, versus measuring chemical components from their input into the sewer system). Instrument design may take on different forms, such as the design of a device (e.g., pyranometer), a questionnaire (Dillman 2007 ) or a part thereof (e.g., a scale see DeVellis 2012 ; Danner et al. 2016 ), an interview guide with topics or questions for the interviewees, or a data extraction form in the context of secondary analysis and literature review (e.g., the Cochrane Collaboration aiming at health and medical sciences or the Campbell Collaboration aiming at evidence based policies).

Researchers from different disciplines are inclined to think of different research objects (e.g., animals, humans or plots), which is where the (specific) research questions come in as these identify the (possibly different) research objects unambiguously. In general, research questions that aim at making an inventory, whether it is an inventory of biodiversity or of lodging, call for a random sampling design. Both in the biodiversity and lodging example, one may opt for random sampling of geographic areas by means of a list of coordinates. Studies that aim to explain a particular phenomenon in a particular context would call for a purposive sampling design (non-random selection). Because studies of biodiversity and housing obey the same laws in terms of appropriate sampling design for similar research questions, individual students and researchers are sensitized to commonalities of their respective (mono)disciplines. For example, a research team interested in the effects of landslides on a socio-ecological system may select for their study one village that suffered from landslides and one village that did not suffer from landslides that have other characteristics in common (e.g., kind of soil, land use, land property legislation, family structure, income distribution, et cetera).

The data analysis plan describes how data will be analysed, for each of the separate modules and for the project at large. In the context of a multi-disciplinary quantitative research project, the data analysis plan will list the intended uni-, bi- and multivariate analyses such as measures for distributions (e.g., means and variances), measures for association (e.g., Pearson Chi square or Kendall Tau) and data reduction and modelling techniques (e.g., factor analysis and multiple linear regression or structural equation modelling) for each of the research modules using the data collected. When applicable, it will describe interim analyses and follow-up rules. In addition to the plans at modular level, the data analysis plan must describe how the input from the separate modules, i.e. different analyses, will be synthesized to answer the overall research question. In case of mixed methods research, the particular type of mixed methods design chosen describes how, when, and to what extent the team will synthesize the results from the different modules.

Unfortunately, in our experience, when some of the research modules rely on a qualitative approach, teams tend to refrain from designing a data analysis plan before starting the field work. While absence of a data analysis plan may be regarded acceptable in fields that rely exclusively on qualitative research (e.g., ethnography), failure to communicate how data will be analysed and what potential evidence will be produced posits a deathblow to interdisciplinarity. For many researchers not familiar with qualitative research, the black box presented as “qualitative data analysis” is a big hurdle, and a transparent and systematic plan is a sine qua non for any scientific collaboration. The absence of a data analysis plan for all modules results in an absence of synthesis of perspectives and skills of the disciplines involved, and in separate (disciplinary) research papers or separate chapters in the research report without an answer to the overall research question. So, although researchers may find it hard to write the data analysis plan for qualitative data, it is pivotal in interdisciplinary research teams.

Similar to the quantitative data analysis plan, the qualitative data analysis plan presents the description of how the researcher will get acquainted with the data collected (e.g., by constructing a narrative summary per interviewee or a paired-comparison of essays). Additionally, the rules to decide on data saturation need be presented. Finally, the types of qualitative analyses are to be described in the data analysis plan. Because there is little or no standardized terminology in qualitative data analysis, it is important to include a precise description as well as references to the works that describe the method intended (e.g., domain analysis as described by Spradley 1979 ; or grounded theory by means of constant-comparison as described by Boeije 2009 ).

2.4 Integration

To benefit optimally from the research being interdisciplinary the modules need to be brought together in the integration stage. The modules may be mono- or interdisciplinary and may rely on quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods approaches. So the MIR framework fits the view that distinguishes three multimethods approaches (quali–quali, quanti–quanti, and quali–quant).

Although the MIR framework has not been designed with the intention to promote mixed methods research, it is suitable for the design of mixed methods research as the kind of research that calls for both quantitative and qualitative components (Creswell and Piano Clark 2011 ). Indeed, just like the pioneers in mixed methods research (Creswell and Piano Clark 2011 : p. 2), the MIR framework deconstructs the package deals of paradigm and data to be collected. The synthesis of the different mono or interdisciplinary modules may benefit from research done on “the unique challenges and possibilities of integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches” (Fetters and Molina-Azorin 2017 : p. 5). We distinguish (sub) sets of modules being designed as convergent, sequential or embedded (adapted from mixed methods design e.g., Creswell and Piano Clark 2011 : pp. 69–70). Convergent modules, whether mono or interdisciplinary, may be done parallel and are integrated after completion. Sequential modules are done after one another and the first modules inform the latter ones (this includes transformative and multiphase mixed methods design). Embedded modules are intertwined. Here, modules depend on one another for data collection and analysis, and synthesis may be planned both during and after completion of the embedded modules.

2.5 Scientific quality and ethical considerations in the design of interdisciplinary research

A minimum set of jargon related to the assessment of scientific quality of research (e.g., triangulation, validity, reliability, saturation, etc.) can be found scattered in Fig.  1 . Some terms are reserved by particular paradigms, others may be seen in several paradigms with more or less subtle differences in meaning. In the latter case, it is important that team members are prepared to explain and share ownership of the term and respect the different meanings. By paying explicit attention to the quality concepts, researchers from different disciplines learn to appreciate each other’s concerns for good quality research and recognize commonalities. For example, the team may discuss measurement validity of both a standardized quantitative instrument and that of an interview and discover that the calibration of the machine serves a similar purpose as the confirmation of the guarantee of anonymity at the start of an interview.

Throughout the process of research design, ethics require explicit discussion among all stakeholders in the project. Ethical issues run through all components in the MIR framework in Fig.  1 . Where social and medical scientists may be more sensitive to ethical issues related to humans (e.g., the 1979 Belmont Report criteria of beneficence, justice, and respect), others may be more sensitive to issues related to animal welfare, ecology, legislation, the funding agency (e.g., implications for policy), data and information sharing (e.g., open access publishing), sloppy research practices, or long term consequences of the research. This is why ethics are an issue for the entire interdisciplinary team and cannot be discussed on project module level only.

3 The MIR framework in practice: two examples

3.1 teaching research methodology to heterogeneous groups of students, 3.1.1 institutional context and background of the mir framework.

Wageningen University and Research (WUR) advocates in its teaching and research an interdisciplinary approach to the study of global issues related to the motto “To explore the potential of nature to improve the quality of life.” Wageningen University’s student population is multidisciplinary and international (e.g., Tobi and Kampen 2013 ). Traditionally, this challenge of diversity in one classroom is met by covering a width of methodological topics and examples from different disciplines. However, when students of various programmes received methodological education in mixed classes, students of some disciplines would regard with disinterest or even disdain methods and techniques of the other disciplines. Different disciplines, especially from the qualitative respectively quantitative tradition in the social sciences (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005 : p. 273), claim certain study designs, methods of data collection and analysis as their territory, a claim reflected in many textbooks. We found that students from a qualitative tradition would not be interested, and would not even study, content like the design of experiments and quantitative data collection; and students from a quantitative tradition would ignore case study design and qualitative data collection. These students assumed they didn’t need any knowledge about ‘the other tradition’ for their future careers, despite the call for interdisciplinarity.

To enhance interdisciplinarity, WUR provides an MSc course mandatory for most students, in which multi-disciplinary teams do research for a commissioner. Students reported difficulties similar to the ones found in the literature: miscommunication due to talking different scientific languages and feelings of distrust and disrespect due to prejudice. This suggested that research methodology courses ought help prepare for interdisciplinary collaboration by introducing a single methodological framework that 1) creates sensitivity to the pros and challenges of interdisciplinary research by means of a common vocabulary and fosters respect for other disciplines, 2) starts from the research questions as pivotal in decision making on research methods instead of tradition or ontology, and 3) allows available methodologies and methods to be potentially applicable to any scientific research problem.

3.1.2 Teaching with MIR—the conceptual framework

As a first step, we replaced textbooks by ones refusing the idea that any scientific tradition has exclusive ownership of any methodological approach or method. The MIR framework further guides our methodology teaching in two ways. First, it presents a logical sequence of topics (first conceptual design, then technical design; first research question(s) or hypotheses, then study design; etc.). Second, it allows for a conceptual separation of topics (e.g., study design from instrument design). Educational programmes at Wageningen University and Research consistently stress the vital importance of good research design. In fact, 50% of the mark in most BSc and MSc courses in research methodology is based on the assessment of a research proposal that students design in small (2-4 students) and heterogeneous (discipline, gender and nationality) groups. The research proposal must describe a project which can be executed in practice, and which limitations (measurement, internal, and external validity) are carefully discussed.

Groups start by selecting a general research topic. They discuss together previously attained courses from a range of programs to identify personal and group interests, with the aim to reach an initial research objective and a general research question as input for the conceptual design. Often, their initial research objective and research question are too broad to be researchable (e.g., Kumar 2014 : p. 64; Adler and Clark 2011 : p. 71). In plenary sessions, the (basics of) critical assessment of empirical research papers is taught with special attention to the ‘what’ and ‘why’ section of research papers. During tutorials students generate research questions until the group agrees on a research objective, with one general research question that consists of a small set of specific research questions. Each of the specific research questions may stem from a different discipline, whereas answering the general research question requires integrating the answers to all specific research questions.

The group then identifies the key concepts in their research questions, while exchanging thoughts on possible attributes based on what they have learnt from previous courses (theories) and literature. When doing so they may judge the research question as too broad, in which case they will turn to the question strategies toolbox again. Once they agree on the formulation of the research questions and the choice of concepts, tasks are divided. In general, each student turns to the literature he/she is most familiar with or interested in, for the operationalization of the concept into measurable attributes and writes a paragraph or two about it. In the next meeting, the groups read and discuss the input and decide on the set-up and division of tasks with respect to the technical design.

3.1.3 Teaching with MIR—the technical framework

The technical part of research design distinguishes between study design, instrument design, sampling design, and the data analysis plan. In class, we first present students with a range of study designs (cross sectional, experimental, etc.). Student groups select an appropriate study design by comparing the demands made by the research questions with criteria for internal validity. When a (specific) research question calls for a study design that is not seen as practically feasible or ethically possible, they will rephrase the research question until the demands of the research question tally with the characteristics of at least one ethical, feasible and internally valid study design.

While following plenary sessions during which different random and non-random sampling or selection strategies are taught, groups start working on their sampling design. The groups make two decisions informed by their research question: the population(s) of research units, and the requirements of the sampling strategy for each population. Like many other aspects in research design, this can be an iterative process. For example, suppose the research question mentioned “local policy makers,” which is too vague for a sampling design. Then the decision may be to limit the study to “policy makers at the municipality level in the Netherlands” and adapt the general and the specific research questions accordingly. Next, the group identifies whether a sample design needs to focus on diversity (e.g., when the objective is to make an inventory of possible local policies), representativeness (e.g., when the objective is to estimate prevalence of types of local policies), or people with particular information (e.g., when the objective is to study people having experience with a given local policy). When a sample has to representative, the students must produce an assessment of external validity, whereas when the aim is to map diversity the students must discuss possible ways of source triangulation. Finally, in conjunction with the data analysis plan, students decide on the sample size and/or the saturation criteria.

When the group has agreed on their population(s) and the strategy for recruiting research units, the next step is to finalize the technical aspects of operationalisation i.e. addressing the issue of exactly how information will be extracted from the research units. Depending on what is practically feasible qua measurement, the choice of a data collection instrument may be a standardised (e.g., a spectrograph, a questionnaire) or less standardised (e.g., semi-structured interviews, visual inspection) one. The students have to discuss the possibilities of method triangulation, and explain the possible weaknesses of their data collection plan in terms of measurement validity and reliability.

3.1.4 Recent developments

Presently little attention is payed to the data analysis plan, procedures for synthesis and reporting because the programmes differ on their offer in data analysis courses, and because execution of the research is not part of the BSc and MSc methodology courses. Recently, we have designed one course for an interdisciplinary BSc program in which the research question is put central in learning and deciding on statistics and qualitative data analysis. Nonetheless, during the past years the number of methodology courses for graduate students that supported the MIR framework have been expanded, e.g., a course “From Topic to Proposal”; separate training modules on questionnaire construction, interviewing, and observation; and optional courses on quantitative and qualitative data analysis. These courses are open to (and attended by) PhD students regardless of their program. In Flanders (Belgium), the Flemish Training Network for Statistics and Methodology (FLAMES) has for the last four years successfully applied the approach outlined in Fig.  1 in its courses for research design and data collection methods. The division of the research process in terms of a conceptual design, technical design, operationalisation, analysis plan, and sampling plan, has proved to be appealing for students of disciplines ranging from linguistics to bioengineering.

3.2 Researching with MIR: noise reducing asphalt layers and quality of life

3.2.1 research objective and research question.

This example of the application of the MIR framework comes from a study about the effects of “noise reducing asphalt layers” on the quality of life (Vuye et al. 2016 ), a project commissioned by the City of Antwerp in 2015 and executed by a multidisciplinary research team of Antwerp University (Belgium). The principal researcher was an engineer from the Faculty of Applied Engineering (dept. Construction), supported by two researchers from the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (dept. of Epidemiology and Social Statistics), one with a background in qualitative and one with a background in quantitative research methods. A number of meetings were held where the research team and the commissioners discussed the research objective (the ‘what’ and ‘why’).The research objective was in part dictated by the European Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, which forces all EU member states to draft noise action plans, and the challenge in this study was to produce evidence of a link between the acoustic and mechanical properties of different types of asphalt, and the quality of life of people living in the vicinity of the treated roads. While there was literature available about the effects of road surface on sound, and other studies had studied the link between noise and health, no study was found that produced evidence simultaneously about noise levels of roads and quality of life. The team therefore decided to test the hypothesis that traffic noise reduction has a beneficial effect on the quality of life of people into the central research. The general research question was, “to what extent does the placing of noise reducing asphalt layers increase the quality of life of the residents?”

3.2.2 Study design

In order to test the effect of types of asphalt, initially a pretest–posttest experiment was designed, which was expanded by several added experimental (change of road surface) and control (no change of road surface) groups. The research team gradually became aware that quality of life may not be instantly affected by lower noise levels, and that a time lag is involved. A second posttest aimed to follow up on this effect although it could only be implemented in a selection of experimental sites.

3.2.3 Instrument selection and design

Sound pressure levels were measured by an ISO-standardized procedure called the Statistical Pass-By (SPB) method. A detailed description of the method is in Vuye et al. ( 2016 ). No such objective procedure is available for measuring quality of life, which can only be assessed by self-reports of the residents. Some time was needed for the research team to accept that measuring a multidimensional concept like quality of life is more complicated than just having people rate their “quality of life” on a 10 point scale. For instance, questions had to be phrased in a way that gave not away the purpose of the research (Hawthorne effect), leading to the inclusion of questions about more nuisances than traffic noise alone. This led to the design of a self-administered questionnaire, with questions of Flanders Survey on Living Environment (Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur & Energie 2013 ) appended by new questions. Among other things, the questionnaire probed for experienced nuisance by sound, quality of sleep, effort to concentrate, effort to have a conversation inside or outside the home, physical complaints such as headaches, etc.

3.2.4 Sampling design

The selected sites needed to accommodate both types of measurements: that of noise from traffic and quality of life of residents. This was a complicating factor that required several rounds of deliberation. While countrywide only certain roads were available for changing the road surface, these roads had to be mutually comparable in terms of the composition of the population, type of residential area (e.g., reports from the top floor of a tall apartment building cannot be compared to those at ground level), average volume of traffic, vicinity of hospitals, railroads and airports, etc. At the level of roads therefore, targeted sampling was applied, whereas at the level of residents the aim was to realize a census of all households within a given perimeter from the treated road surfaces. Considerations about the reliability of applied instruments were guiding decisions with respect to sampling. While the measurements of the SPB method were sufficiently reliable to allow for relatively few measurements, the questionnaire suffered from considerable nonresponse which hampered statistical power. It was therefore decided to increase the power of the study by adding control groups in areas where the road surface was not replaced. This way, detecting an effect of the intervention did not solely depend on the turnout of the pre and the post-test.

3.2.5 Data analysis plan

The statistical analysis had to account for the fact that data were collected at two different levels: the level of the residents filling out the questionnaires, and the level of the roads which surface was changed. Because survey participation was confidential, results of the pre- and posttest could only be compared at aggregate (street) level. The analysis had to control for confounding variables (e.g., sample composition, variety in traffic volume, etc.), experimental factors (varieties in experimental conditions, and controls), and non-normal dependent variables. The statistical model appropriate for analysis of such data is a Generalised Linear Mixed Model.

3.2.6 Execution

Data were collected during the course of 2015, 2016 and 2017 and are awaiting final analysis in Spring 2017. Intermediate analyses resulted in several MSc theses, conference presentations, and working papers that reported on parts of the research.

4 Discussion

In this paper we presented the Methodology in Interdisciplinary Research framework that we developed over the past decade building on our experience as lecturers, consultants and researchers. The MIR framework recognizes research methodology and methods as important content in the critical factor skills and competences. It approaches research and collaboration as a process that needs to be designed with the sole purpose to answer the general research question. For the conceptual design the team members have to discuss and agree on the objective of their communal efforts without squeezing it into one single discipline and, thus, ignoring complexity. The specific research questions, when formulated, contribute to (self) respect in collaboration as they represent and stand witness of the need for interdisciplinarity. In the technical design, different parts were distinguished to stimulate researchers to think and design research out of their respective disciplinary boxes and consider, for example, an experimental design with qualitative data collection, or a case study design based on quantitative information.

In our teaching and consultancy, we first developed a MIR framework for social sciences, economics, health and environmental sciences interdisciplinarity. It was challenged to include research in the design discipline of landscape architecture. What characterizes research in landscape architecture and other design principles, is that the design product as well as the design process may be the object of study. Lenzholder et al. ( 2017 ) therefore distinguish three kinds of research in landscape architecture. The first kind, “Research into design” studies the design product post hoc and the MIR framework suits the interdisciplinary study of such a product. In contrast, “Research for design” generates knowledge that feeds into the noun and the verb ‘design’, which means it precedes the design(ing). The third kind, Research through Design(ing) employs designing as a research method. At first, just like Deming and Swaffield ( 2011 ), we were a bit skeptical about “designing” as a research method. Lenzholder et al. ( 2017 ) pose that the meaning of research through design has evolved through a (neo)positivist, constructivist and transformative paradigm to include a pragmatic stance that resembles the pragmatic stance assumed in the MIR framework. We learned that, because landscape architecture is such an interdisciplinary field, the process approach and the distinction between a conceptual and technical research design was considered very helpful and embraced by researchers in landscape architecture (Tobi and van den Brink 2017 ).

Mixed methods research (MMR) has been considered to study topics as diverse as education (e.g., Powell et al. 2008 ), environmental management (e.g., Molina-Azorin and Lopez-Gamero 2016 ), health psychology (e.g., Bishop 2015 ) and information systems (e.g., Venkatesh et al. 2013 ). Nonetheless, the MIR framework is the first to put MMR in the context of integrating disciplines beyond social inquiry (Greene 2008 ). The splitting of the research into modules stimulates the identification and recognition of the contribution of both distinct and collaborating disciplines irrespective of whether they contribute qualitative and/or quantitative research in the interdisciplinary research design. As mentioned in Sect.  2.4 the integration of the different research modules in one interdisciplinary project design may follow one of the mixed methods designs. For example, we witnessed at several occasions the integration of social and health sciences in interdisciplinary teams opting for sequential modules in a sequential exploratory mixed methods fashion (e.g., Adamson 2005 : 234). In sustainability science research, we have seen the design of concurrent modules for a concurrent nested mixed methods strategy (ibid) in research integrating the social and natural sciences and economics.

The limitations of the MIR framework are those of any kind of collaboration: it cannot work wonders in the absence of awareness of the necessity and it requires the willingness to work, learn, and research together. We developed MIR framework in and alongside our own teaching, consultancy and research, it has not been formally evaluated and compared in an experiment with teaching, consultancy and research with, for example, the regulative cycle for problem solving (van Strien 1986 ), or the wheel of science from Babbie ( 2013 ). In fact, although we wrote “developed” in the previous sentence, we are fully aware of the need to further develop and refine the framework as is.

The importance of the MIR framework lies in the complex, multifaceted nature of issues like sustainability, food security and one world health. For progress in the study of these pressing issues the understanding, construction and quality of interdisciplinary portfolio measurements (Tobi 2014 ) are pivotal and require further study as well as procedures facilitating the integration across different disciplines.

Another important strain of further research relates to the continuum of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR), Questionable Research Practices (QRP), and deliberate misconduct (Steneck 2006 ). QRP includes failing to report all of a study’s conditions, stopping collecting data earlier than planned because one found the result one had been looking for, etc. (e.g., John et al. 2012 ; Simmons et al. 2011 ; Kampen and Tamás 2014 ). A meta-analysis on selfreports obtained through surveys revealed that about 2% of researchers had admitted to research misconduct at least once, whereas up to 33% admitted to QRPs (Fanelli 2009 ). While the frequency of QRPs may easily eclipse that of deliberate fraud (John et al. 2012 ) these practices have received less attention than deliberate misconduct. Claimed research findings may often be accurate measures of the prevailing biases and methodological rigor in a research field (Fanelli and Ioannidis 2013 ; Fanelli 2010 ). If research misconduct and QRP are to be understood then the disciplinary context must be grasped as a locus of both legitimate and illegitimate activity (Fox 1990 ). It would be valuable to investigate how working in interdisciplinary teams and, consequently, exposure to other standards of QRP and RCR influence research integrity as the appropriate research behavior from the perspective of different professional standards (Steneck 2006 : p. 56). These differences in scientific cultures concern criteria for quality in design and execution of research, reporting (e.g., criteria for authorship of a paper, preferred publication outlets, citation practices, etc.), archiving and sharing of data, and so on.

Other strains of research include interdisciplinary collaboration and negotiation, where we expect contributions from the “science of team science” (Falk-Krzesinski et al. 2010 ); and compatibility of the MIR framework with new research paradigms such as “inclusive research” (a mode of research involving people with intellectual disabilities as more than just objects of research; e.g., Walmsley and Johnson 2003 ). Because of the complexity and novelty of inclusive health research a consensus statement was developed on how to conduct health research inclusively (Frankena et al., under review). The eight attributes of inclusive health research identified may also be taken as guiding attributes in the design of inclusive research according to the MIR framework. For starters, there is the possibility of inclusiveness in the conceptual framework, particularly in determining research objectives, and in discussing possible theoretical frameworks with team members with an intellectual disability which Frankena et al. labelled the “Designing the study” attribute. There are also opportunities for inclusiveness in the technical design, and in execution. For example, the inclusiveness attribute “generating data” overlaps with the operationalization and measurement instrument design/selection and the attribute “analyzing data” aligns with the data analysis plan in the technical design.

On a final note, we hope to have aroused the reader’s interest in, and to have demonstrated the need for, a methodology for interdisciplinary research design. We further hope that the MIR framework proposed and explained in this article helps those involved in designing an interdisciplinary research project to get a clearer view of the various processes that must be secured during the project’s design and execution. And we look forward to further collaboration with scientists from all cultures to contribute to improving the MIR framework and make interdisciplinary collaborations successful.

Aboelela, S.W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S.A., Gebbie, K.M.: Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv. Res 42 (1), 329–346 (2007)

Article   Google Scholar  

Adamson, J.: Combined qualitative and quantitative designs. In: Bowling, A., Ebrahim, S. (eds.) Handbook of Health Research Methods: Investigation, Measurement and Analysis, pp. 230–245. Open University Press, Maidenhead (2005)

Google Scholar  

Adler, E.S., Clark, R.: An Invitation to Social Research: How it’s Done, 4th edn. Sage, London (2011)

Babbie, E.R.: The Practice of Social Research, 13th edn. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont Ca (2013)

Baker, G.H., Little, R.G.: Enhancing homeland security: development of a course on critical infrastructure systems. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. (2006). doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1263

Bishop, F.L.: Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: an illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective. Br. J. Health. Psychol. 20 (1), 5–20 (2015)

Boeije, H.R.: Analysis in Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2009)

Bruns, D., van den Brink, A., Tobi, H., Bell, S.: Advancing landscape architecture research. In: van den Brink, A., Bruns, D., Tobi, H., Bell, S. (eds.) Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods And Methodology, pp. 11–23. Routledge, New York (2017)

Creswell, J.W., Piano Clark, V.L.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2011)

Danner, D., Blasius, J., Breyer, B., Eifler, S., Menold, N., Paulhus, D.L., Ziegler, M.: Current challenges, new developments, and future directions in scale construction. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 32 (3), 175–180 (2016)

Deming, M.E., Swaffield, S.: Landscape Architecture Research. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)

Departement Leefmilieu, Natuur en Energie: Uitvoeren van een uitgebreide schriftelijke enquête en een beperkte CAWI-enquête ter bepaling van het percentage gehinderden door geur, geluid en licht in Vlaanderen–SLO-3. Leuven: Market Analysis & Synthesis. www.lne.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/lne-slo-3-eindrapport.pdf (2013). Accessed 8 March 2017

De Vaus, D.: Research Design in Social Research. Sage, London (2001)

DeVellis, R.F.: Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 3rd edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2012)

Dillman, D.A.: Mail and Internet Surveys, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hobroken (2007)

Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Borner, K., Contractor, N., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K.L., Keyton, J., Uzzi, B., et al.: Advancing the science of team science. CTS Clin. Transl. Sci. 3 (5), 263–266 (2010)

Fanelli, D.: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and metaanalysis of survey data. PLoS ONE (2009). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Fanelli, D.: Positive results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE (2010). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068

Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J.P.A.: US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (37), 15031–15036 (2013)

Fetters, M.D., Molina-Azorin, J.F.: The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: principles for bringing in the new and divesting of the old language of the field. J. Mixed Methods Res. 11 (1), 3–10 (2017)

Fischer, A.R.H., Tobi, H., Ronteltap, A.: When natural met social: a review of collaboration between the natural and social sciences. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 36 (4), 341–358 (2011)

Flick, U.: An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Sage, London (2006)

Fox, M.F.: Fraud, ethics, and the disciplinary contexts of science and scholarship. Am. Sociol. 21 (1), 67–71 (1990)

Frischknecht, P.M.: Environmental science education at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH). Water Sci. Technol. 41 (2), 31–36 (2000)

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C.: Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327 (5967), 812–818 (2010)

Greene, J.C.: Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? J. Mixed Methods Res. 2 (1), 7–22 (2008)

IPCC.: Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (2015) Accessed 8 March 2017

John, L.K., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D.: Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol. Sci. 23 (5), 524–532 (2012)

Kagan, J.: The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

Book   Google Scholar  

Kampen, J.K., Tamás, P.: Should I take this seriously? A simple checklist for calling bullshit on policy supporting research. Qual. Quant. 48 , 1213–1223 (2014)

Kumar, R.: Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 1st edn. Sage, Los Angeles (1999)

Kumar, R.: Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2014)

Kvale, S.: Doing Interviews. Sage, London (2007)

Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S.: Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Interviews, 2nd edn. Sage, London (2009)

Lenzholder, S., Duchhart, I., van den Brink, A.: The relationship between research design. In: van den Brink, A., Bruns, D., Tobi, H., Bell, S. (eds.) Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology, pp. 54–64. Routledge, New York (2017)

Molina-Azorin, J.F., Lopez-Gamero, M.D.: Mixed methods studies in environmental management research: prevalence, purposes and designs. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 25 (2), 134–148 (2016)

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: Taking the “Q” out of research: teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Qual. Quant. 39 (3), 267–296 (2005)

Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Suldo, S., Daley, C.E.: Mixed methods research in school psychology: a mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychol. Sch. 45 (4), 291–309 (2008)

Shipley, B.: Cause and Correlation in Biology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)

Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., Simonsohn, U.: False positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 1359–1366 (2011)

Spelt, E.J.H., Biemans, H.J.A., Tobi, H., Luning, P.A., Mulder, M.: Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21 (4), 365–378 (2009)

Spradley, J.P.: The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1979)

Steneck, N.H.: Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci. Eng. Eth. 12 (1), 53–74 (2006)

Tobi, H.: Measurement in interdisciplinary research: the contributions of widely-defined measurement and portfolio representations. Measurement 48 , 228–231 (2014)

Tobi, H., Kampen, J.K.: Survey error in an international context: an empirical assessment of crosscultural differences regarding scale effects. Qual. Quant. 47 (1), 553–559 (2013)

Tobi, H., van den Brink, A.: A process approach to research in landscape architecture. In: van den Brink, A., Bruns, D., Tobi, H., Bell, S. (eds.) Research in Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology, pp. 24–34. Routledge, New York (2017)

van Strien, P.J.: Praktijk als wetenschap: Methodologie van het sociaal-wetenschappelijk handelen [Practice as science. Methodology of social scientific acting.]. Van Gorcum, Assen (1986)

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., Bala, H.: Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Q 37 (1), 21–54 (2013)

Vuye, C., Bergiers, A., Vanhooreweder, B.: The acoustical durability of thin noise reducing asphalt layers. Coatings (2016). doi: 10.3390/coatings6020021

Walmsley, J., Johnson, K.: Inclusive Research with People with Learning Disabilities: Past, Present and Futures. Jessica Kingsley, London (2003)

Walsh, W.B., Smith, G.L., London, M.: Developing an interface between engineering and social sciences- interdisciplinary team-approach to solving societal problems. Am. Psychol. 30 (11), 1067–1071 (1975)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The MIR framework is the result of many discussions with students, researchers and colleagues, with special thanks to Peter Tamás, Jennifer Barrett, Loes Maas, Giel Dik, Ruud Zaalberg, Jurian Meijering, Vanessa Torres van Grinsven, Matthijs Brink, Gerda Casimir, and, last but not least, Jenneken Naaldenberg.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Biometris, Wageningen University and Research, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Hilde Tobi & Jarl K. Kampen

Statua, Dept. of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Antwerp University, Venusstraat 35, 2000, Antwerp, Belgium

Jarl K. Kampen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilde Tobi .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tobi, H., Kampen, J.K. Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Qual Quant 52 , 1209–1225 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8

Download citation

Published : 27 April 2017

Issue Date : May 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research design
• Interdisciplinarity
• Consultancy
• Multidisciplinary collaboration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Flagship Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research

Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research examines current interdisciplinary research efforts and recommends ways to stimulate and support such research.

Advances in science and engineering increasingly require the collaboration of scholars from various fields. This shift is driven by the need to address complex problems that cut across traditional disciplines, and the capacity of new technologies to both transform existing disciplines and generate new ones. At the same time, however, interdisciplinary research can be impeded by policies on hiring, promotion, tenure, proposal review, and resource allocation that favor traditional disciplines.

This report identifies steps that researchers, teachers, students, institutions, funding organizations, and disciplinary societies can take to more effectively conduct, facilitate, and evaluate interdisciplinary research programs and projects. Throughout the report key concepts are illustrated with case studies and results of the committee's surveys of individual researchers and university provosts.

RESOURCES AT A GLANCE

• Press Release
• Policy for Science and Technology — Research and Data
• Biology and Life Sciences — Biology

Suggested Citation

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-09435-1
• Ebook:  978-0-309-16548-8

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

Alla Konnikov

Karen d hughes, april 13th, 2023, how to manage a major interdisciplinary research project in 4 steps.

0 comments | 35 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Drawing on their work on a major international and interdisciplinary research project, Alla Konnikov, Irina Rets and Karen D Hughes provide four lessons for researchers undertaking similar projects to reflect on.

Interdisciplinarity is vital to addressing complex social challenges and promoting innovative research. This is particularly true when exploring emerging topics, such as the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in automated social systems and interactions. Yet, interdisciplinary collaboration poses conceptual and methodological challenges that require unique strategies and solutions. Reflecting on our work on the recent BIAS project , we traced some of the challenges we faced carrying out interdisciplinary research and the strategies we developed to mitigate them. You can read our findings in detail in our recent book chapter ; here we want to summarise some of the key points.

The BIAS project is a bilateral (Canada – UK) interdisciplinary research initiative that seeks to understand the role of AI in shaping labour market inequalities. The project brings together scholars from diverse disciplines, such as mathematical & statistical sciences, computing & communications, sociology, and management. Working on such a complex project we decided to conduct our own internal research into the challenges and strategies in working across disciplines.

This research was undertaken in stages, as the project unfolded. We conducted interviews with the founding members of the project about the formation of the project team. Next, we administered a survey to the full team to gather information on effective interdisciplinary collaboration. The analysis of this data helped to reflect on our own collaborative experience and highlighted effective strategies such as flexibility, ‘interdisciplinary mindsets’, and unique communication styles. Next, we formulated our ‘lessons learned’ to be disseminated to anyone interested in interdisciplinary work.

1. How to establish an interdisciplinary research project?

‘The idea of the project came up in a coffee shop.’  Interdisciplinary project teams are more easily formed when there are pre-existing professional relationships developed through conferences, professional events, and working at the same institution. Some connections among the Co-investigators of the project went back many years (graduate school colleagues), while others were more recent (colleagues meeting at an event at their university designed to spur interdisciplinary research). This finding highlights the key role of the research institutions and funders in enhancing the capacity for interdisciplinary research through structural supports that connect researchers across different disciplines, faculties and across countries.

2. How to establish interdisciplinary communication?

Openness and flexibility : ‘ We all had to carve out and include and exclude bits of our interests to make this collaboration work …’ ­ As the objectives of the project could not be achieved by one discipline alone, the willingness to accommodate various intellectual interests and goals in the project was paired with a degree of compromise. Instead of striving for homogeneity and sameness, our strategy was to bridge the interdisciplinary differences and build on disciplinary strengths.

Developing common language : “ We have different terminologies in different disciplines. But, we all tend to understand diagrams and graphs in the same way …” The employment of visual tools, such as pictures, graphs, and figures to summarise ideas and concepts was a key strategy used by the project team to facilitate interdisciplinary communication.

Interdisciplinary ‘ translation’ : ‘ Sometimes the translator role in the project can be very important to facilitate intra-disciplinary dialogue.’ Some members of the team took on responsibility for bridging the communication gap between different disciplines. This finding underscores the importance of the intellectual and administrative coordination through a ‘super bridger’ – a role naturally taken by a few members of the team who ‘fell in between categories’ and had a solid understanding of the concepts and methods used in the different disciplines.

3. How to achieve interdisciplinary research goals?

Pairing methods from the different disciplines: Instead of ‘ waiting for the next five-ten years to import methods from another discipline, within an interdisciplinary project we could do it at once.’  Interdisciplinary research can bolster professional development and innovation in unique ways. Collaboration between social and computer scientists resulted in a unique combination of methods that included a development of the novel word inventory (social sciences) for identifying a biased language that was then used for a large-scale computational analysis of the job postings (computer sciences).

4. How to achieve interdisciplinary outcomes and what implications does this have for academic careers?

‘It is important to recognise and make sure that the early career researchers are protected’ ­. Being part of an interdisciplinary project can be associated with both increased risks and opportunities for the early-career researchers, who are first expected to gain sufficient expertise in their own disciplines, including publications. However, interdisciplinarity teaches early-career researchers lessons of open-mindedness and that ‘big’ research problems cannot be solved within one discipline. In terms of disseminating our scholarly work, the team identified a few top-tier interdisciplinary journals that were not an obvious choice for some of the team members within their disciplines. The team accepted that targeting such journals would require prolonged investment, but could result in ‘higher return’ and a more significant intellectual contribution to interdisciplinarity.

Working in a large, international, interdisciplinary project has been different from much of our everyday academic work. Interdisciplinary work requires more investment in time, learning, coordination, and building effective communication. There are also compromises in terms of including and excluding personal research interests. That said, we also recognise that interdisciplinarity has pushed our work past the constraints of a single discipline. Though sparked by the nature of the grant, our project’s interdisciplinary design has enabled the study of a complex real-life problem – bias – and encouraged each of us to perceive our own disciplinary approaches and methods in a new light.

This post draws on Konnikov, A., Rets, I., Hughes, K. D., Al-Ani, J. A., Denier, N., Ding, L., Hu, S., Hu, Y., Jiang, B., Kong, L., Tarafdar, M., & Yu, D. (2022). Responsible AI for labour market equality (BIAS) . In L. Hantrais (Ed.). How to Manage International Multidisciplinary Research Projects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.  Please review our  comments policy  if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Hannah Busing via Unsplash.

About the author

Alla Konnikov is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of Alberta. Her research focuses on how inequality is produced and reproduced across different organizational settings, such as labour markets, professions, and workplaces.

Irina Rets is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Educational Technology, the Open University, UK. With expertise in inclusive artificial intelligence (AI) and linguistics, Irina’s current research explores how technology can be leveraged to improve social justice in the learning contexts and more generally in society.

Karen D Hughes is a Professor of Sociology and the Alex Hamilton Professor of Business at the University of Alberta, Canada. Her research and teaching focus on work, organisations, and labour markets; economic inequality; and the rise of entrepreneurial work in contemporary economies.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

Co-producing critique and the impact of collective knowledge

December 12th, 2022.

Fostering agility to diversify science, music, and society

December 15th, 2021.

Transformation by design or by disaster – Why we need more transformative research now

January 31st, 2023.

Using games for inclusive research and policy design – The case of Kuwaitscapes

March 3rd, 2022.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Interdisciplinary Approach

A key to innovation.

At Princeton University, interdisciplinary research is the norm: a diversity of expertise leads to the most innovative ideas.

Research Collaborations

Across departments and across disciplines, Princeton faculty, postdocs, graduate students and undergraduates collaborate on a wide range of research projects year after year. Princetonians also take part in research all around the world (and beyond!) with colleagues at other companies, organizations and universities. Here are a few examples.

Mathematics and more .

Science and the arts converge .

Art partnership with HBCUs .

Interdisciplinary Centers

The interdisciplinary approach to teaching and research is prevalent throughout the University, mixing scientists and humanists, engineers and social scientists in a variety of ways to enhance discovery and better serve humanity. Here's a list of some of the centers and programs at Princeton that take this approach:

• Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
• Center for Digital Humanities
• Center for Information Technology Policy
• Center for Statistics and Machine Learning
• High Meadows Environmental Institute
• Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics
• Princeton Center for Complex Materials
• Princeton Center for Theoretical Science
• Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering
• Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies
• Princeton Materials Institute
• Princeton Neuroscience Institute
• Princeton School of Public and International Affairs
• University Center for Human Values

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Learn About Interdisciplinary Research

Research approaches.

The U.S. National Science Foundation gives high priority to research that is interdisciplinary — transcending the scope of a single discipline or program.

NSF's support of interdisciplinary research and education is essential for accelerating scientific discovery and preparing a workforce that addresses scientific challenges in innovative ways.

This page covers the ways NSF supports interdisciplinary research and how to prepare an interdisciplinary proposal, including how to submit an unsolicited proposal when there is no natural " home " for it in one of NSF’s existing programs.

On this page

What is interdisciplinary research.

Credit: Jurgen Schulze, University of California, San Diego

The definition of a "discipline" and the varieties of cross-disciplinary research — from multidisciplinary, to interdisciplinary, to transdisciplinary — are constantly evolving. Although there is not always agreement on these definitions, it is clear that areas of research are dynamic: continually emerging, melding and transforming. What is considered interdisciplinary today might be considered disciplinary tomorrow.

A working definition of interdisciplinary research can be found in the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine's report, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research :

Interdisciplinary research:

• Integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts or theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge.
• Can be done by teams or by individuals.
• Advances fundamental understanding or solves problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice.

How does NSF support interdisciplinary research?

1. Solicited interdisciplinary research

Numerous NSF programs are designed to be explicitly interdisciplinary. Solicitations, which invite proposals to these programs, are posted on the NSF website . NSF's interdisciplinary research programs broadly fall under the three categories below:

Cross-cutting programs

Many of NSF's interdisciplinary programs involve several of NSF's directorates. Examples of these programs include:

• Building Theoretical Foundations for Data Sciences (TRIPODS)
• Coastlines and People
• Dynamics of Integrated Socio-Environmental Systems
• Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases  
• Growing Convergence Research
• Research on Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning
• Smart and Connected Communities

Areas of national importance

NSF develops funding portfolios that focus on complex societal challenges of national interest, often in collaboration with other federal agencies. Examples of these programs include:

• The Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier
• National Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes
• Navigating the New Arctic
• Understanding the Rules of Life

Center competitions

Many of the centers funded by NSF bring together interdisciplinary research teams. Examples of NSF's center competitions include:

• Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers
• Science and Technology Centers

2. Unsolicited interdisciplinary research

NSF invites interdisciplinary proposals that are not targeted by a program solicitation, as long as they are appropriate for NSF support . Depending on its focus, such a proposal may:

• Be reviewed by a single core program.
• Be co-reviewed by more than one program.
• Extend beyond the scope of any current program.

See " How to prepare an interdisciplinary proposal " to learn how to submit an unsolicited interdisciplinary research proposal.

3. Education and training

NSF has numerous programs supporting the development of the next generation of researchers. The support from these programs is in addition to the support for undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to conduct research on NSF-funded grants. Examples of these programs include:

• Research Traineeship Program
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates

4. Workshops, conferences and symposiums

NSF sponsors forums designed to promote interdisciplinary perspectives and research.

How to prepare an interdisciplinary proposal

Preparing an unsolicited interdisciplinary proposal.

Follow the guidance below for how to submit a proposal with ideas that are in novel or emerging areas extending beyond any particular NSF program.

1. Prepare a summary of your proposal ideas.

Develop a short 1–2 paragraph description of your proposal idea that you can send by email and discuss with NSF staff. Make sure your idea is appropriate for NSF funding by viewing the Programs and Funding Opportunities section of the agency's Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide .

2. Contact an NSF program officer.

The program officer you contact will provide guidance on how and where to submit your proposal. To find an appropriate program officer, consider these options in the following order:

• Identify a program officer through an existing NSF program. In many cases, there will be an existing NSF program for which the proposal idea may be appropriate. Read the program description or solicitation. If your idea seems appropriate, contact one of the program’s program officers.
• Identify a program officer through other means. If your proposal doesn’t clearly fit an existing program, it may make sense to first contact a program officer with expertise in your discipline. They may consult with other NSF staff or recommend another officer for you to contact. You may also contact a program officer you already know, such as one who is managing an award for you or who you met at a conference. 
• Contact a point of contact listed below. If you think your proposal will be of particular interest to one NSF directorate or office, reach out to the relevant point of contact for that directorate. That person is responsible for identifying a program officer in that directorate who will discuss your proposal with you.

Who to contact

The contacts below are responsible for identifying a program officer in their directorate who will discuss your proposal with you.

If there is not an obvious point of contact from one of the options below, email NSF at [email protected] or call (703) 292-4840.

Cross-directorate, NSF-wide

Jessica Robin, OD/OISE

Telephone: (703) 292-8706

Email: [email protected]

Office of Integrative Activities

Randy Phelps, OD/OIA

Telephone: (703) 292-5049

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Biological Sciences

James O. Deshler, BIO/DBI

Telephone: (703) 292-7871

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering

James Donlon, CISE/CCF

Telephone: (703) 292-8074

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Education and Human Resources

Gregg E. Solomon, EHR/DRL

Telephone: (703) 292-8333

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Engineering

Sohi Rastegar, ENG/OAD

Telephone: (703) 292-5379

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Geosciences

Barbara Ransom , GEO/OAD

Telephone: (703) 292-7792

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Dean Evasius, MPS/OAD

Telephone: (703) 292-7352

Email: [email protected]

Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

Brian Humes, SBE/SES

Telephone: (703) 292-7281

Email: [email protected]

Preparing a proposal for an existing program?

If you are submitting a proposal to an existing program that is designed to be interdisciplinary or encourages interdisciplinary work, simply prepare your proposal in accordance with the program description or solicitation.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

1. does an interdisciplinary proposal have to be transformative.

No. The extent to which a proposed project is potentially transformative is just one of the considerations included in NSF's Intellectual Merit review criterion. See NSF's " Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide " for more details.

2. Will interdisciplinary proposals be given preference when funding recommendations are made?

If a proposal is reviewed through an existing NSF program, this will depend on the program's criteria.

Some programs are specifically restricted to interdisciplinary research topics. In those programs, a great deal of weight is given to "interdisciplinary" aspects of the proposed work. Some other NSF programs, while not so restricted, explicitly encourage interdisciplinary research and consider it as a positive factor.

In programs that do not distinguish interdisciplinary research as a priority, the review will be based on the combined assessment of the project according to NSF's Merit Review criteria and any other special criteria that may be part of the program's solicitation or description. In these programs, interdisciplinary proposals that advance the program goals are encouraged and funded, and any "weight" is based on the anticipated potential of the project, not whether it is interdisciplinary or single-disciplinary in nature.

Finally, if a proposal is not reviewed through an existing program, it will be reviewed using the two NSF Merit Review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

3. Has NSF set aside funds for interdisciplinary research proposals?

Collaborations of interdisciplinary teams are encouraged throughout many NSF solicitations. For example, facility and center programs may call for interdisciplinary efforts.

In programs that do not explicitly call for interdisciplinary research, funds are not set aside for such proposals. However, a division, office or directorate may designate funds to support projects with noteworthy characteristics or potential, which could result from an interdisciplinary approach.

4. I discussed my ideas for an interdisciplinary proposal with several program officers but was discouraged to submit. What are my options?

Program officers play a critical role in providing guidance to the community on the various funding opportunities at NSF. You may have been discouraged to submit because your proposal is outside the scope of NSF’s programs and funding opportunities described in the " Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide ."

Even if you are discouraged from submitting, you always retain the option to submit a proposal. To submit, you can contact one of the points of contact identified on this page, or you can contact NSF at [email protected] or (703) 292-4840. NSF's points of contact are responsible for finding an appropriate mechanism for reviewing your proposal.

5. Is the merit review process less receptive to interdisciplinary proposals?

No. Funding interdisciplinary research is a high priority for NSF and, in turn, program officers will identify appropriate panelists and ad hoc reviewers to ensure that the full range of interdisciplinary research is covered by a proposal's reviewers.

But it is important to remember that being interdisciplinary does not automatically make a proposal more worthy. Unfortunately, NSF must decline a high percentage of meritorious proposals for a variety of reasons.

NSF's program officers have the responsibility and authority to recommend awards for proposals that were not among the most highly ranked by the review panels in order to maintain a balanced portfolio of investments.

6. If my funded interdisciplinary research project is not successful in achieving its stated goals, will this jeopardize future funding possibilities?

As with any prior NSF award, reviewers are asked to comment on the quality of prior work when evaluating a proposal. Note that your proposal may contain up to five pages to describe those results.

7. May I submit the same interdisciplinary research proposal to more than one program concurrently?

No. As indicated in NSF's " Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide ," you are required to select one applicable program announcement, solicitation or program description when preparing your proposal. In some instances, you can also select more than one of NSF's programs or units that you feel are appropriate to co-review your interdisciplinary research project.

Even if you submit your proposal to one program, an NSF program officer may elect to have your proposal reviewed by more than one program.

8. If my interdisciplinary research proposal is reviewed by more than one program, will it be subject to "double jeopardy"?

Preliminary analyses indicate that proposals that are co-reviewed by two or more programs actually have, in most cases, a slightly higher chance of being recommended for funding than do proposals reviewed in a single program.

9. May I add extra pages to the project description because my proposal is interdisciplinary?

No. Your proposal must conform to the " Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide " or to the limitations specified in the program solicitation.

10. How will differing program target dates, deadlines or submission windows affect the review of an interdisciplinary proposal that is reviewed by multiple programs?

This may lengthen the review process somewhat if one program's submission cycle differs substantially from another's. The points of contact identified on this site will assure that an appropriate review is carried out, and program officers will work together to conduct these reviews as expeditiously as possible.

Integration and Implementation Insights

A community blog and repository of resources for improving research impact on complex real-world problems

10 tips for next generation interdisciplinary research

By Rachel Kelly

Can we develop a shared understanding on how to engage in an interdisciplinary setting that will be useful in addressing current and future grand challenges?

Advice provided by interdisciplinary experts from 25 countries, across all continents, and with over 240 years cumulative experience (Kelly, et al ., 2019) is combined here into succinct guidance that aims to empower researchers wishing to engage in interdisciplinary endeavors. The ten tips are also summarized in the figure below (focused on socio-ecological researchers).

• Develop an area of expertise – A core grounding shapes your research identity and will guide your ability to contribute and engage in interdisciplinary collaborations.
• Learn new languages – Strive to express your research in ways that are clear and understandable to others outside of your discipline or expertise.
• Be open-minded – Consciously be open to learning and new ways of doing things, particularly to engage in collaborations that include knowledges that are new to you.
• Be patien t – Establishing and conducting interdisciplinary research takes time, and lots of it! Allocate time in the research process for iterative stages of learning, communicating and shared reflection.
• Embrace complexity – Interdisciplinary research is integrative and brings people together to combine their collective expertise. Collaborations should include input from all members of the research team. Always remember that every researcher can make a valid contribution.
• Collaborate widely – Ditch your ego in interdisciplinary research; collaborative approaches demand the ability to work and get along with others.
• Push your boundaries – Make attempts, big and small, to get beyond your comfort zone. Expose yourself to new perspectives, opinions and novel ideas.
• Consider if you will engage in interdisciplinary research – Interdisciplinary careers are not necessary, or necessarily appealing, to everyone, and disciplinary research will continue to play an important role. Consider what’s the best approach for you and your career goals.

The next two tips focus at the leadership and research culture levels.

• Foster interdisciplinary culture – Give others freedom to work and think across disciplinary borders. In particular, research leaders can provide and foster space for interdisciplinary projects to be discussed and developed.
• Champion interdisciplinary researchers – Great interdisciplinary research deserves recognition akin to single-disciplinary research. Research leaders and institutions can create opportunities (and reduce barriers) by recognising excellent interdisciplinary research.

Reader, have you any other tips you’d like to share? What has worked best for you when collaborating in interdisciplinary research?

To find out more : Kelly, R., Mackay, M., Nash, K. L., Cvitanovic, C., Allison, E. H., Armitage, D., Bonn, A., Cooke, S. J., Frusher, S., Fulton, C. J., Halpern, B. S., Lopes, P. F. M., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Peck, M. A.. Pecl, G. T., Stephenson, R. L. and Werner, F. (2019). Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecological Practice Research , 1 , 2: 149–161 (Online) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2

Biography: Rachel Kelly is a researcher at the Centre for Marine Socioecology in Tasmania, Australia, working to improve public engagement with the ocean and marine science. Her research focuses on the human dimensions of marine conservation, and includes inter- and trans- disciplinary concepts including social licence, ocean literacy, marine citizenship and citizen science .

Share this:

5 thoughts on “10 tips for next generation interdisciplinary research”.

• Pingback: Practical tips on how to be an interdisciplinary individual – Ellie Wood

Great range of suggestions! Let me add, if I may, number eleven. Although many people shy away from “theory” because theories seem so often seem overly esoteric (even within one’s own discipline) and downright confusing (when the come from another discipline) we’ve found a clear and direct approach to synthesizing theoretical perspectives. Basically, that involves creating a causal knowledge map of each theory from each discipline or stakeholder group; then, integrating the maps to create a more useful, more actionable map to support planning. For example: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-03-2018-0136/full/html

Thanks Steve for sharing! Interesting approach and yes, hopefully one that can be used to map strengths and overlaps that can contribute to more successful collaborations.

Great to see that our research can be applied across sectors and approaches – glad to see its uptake in HTI.

Best regards, Rachel

Rachel, Thank you for your clear, concise and informative article on this otherwise complex topic. This reply is primarily to let you know that I’ve shared your article on LinkedIn with the following text, which “borrows” your detail on interdisciplinary science to clarify the Humaneering Technology Initiative’s transdisciplinary project.

“The Humaneering Technology Initiative (HTI) is a transdisciplinary research and development effort (transdisciplinary is roughly equivalent to interdisciplinary plus additional non-disciplinary knowledge). This article briefly shares many of the issues that distinguish interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) science from disciplinary science, with the latter more commonly discussed in public media. They are different based on the breadth of science disciplines considered. Neither is better necessarily, as both play an important role in the overall scientific enterprise.

Transdisciplinary research and development are essential for “grand challenges” like HTI’s work to create a universal technology for optimizing applications of “living” human nature (e.g., work, learning, well-being), similar to how engineering is our universal technology for optimizing with “non-living” physical nature.

The fact that HTI chose “human work” as it’s initial area of focus should not limit your imagination for the many potential ways humaneering can eventually contribute to our lives and the lives of our children and their children.”

Thanks again for your helpful work.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from Integration and Implementation Insights

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Examples of Potential Interdisciplinary Research Projects

Example 1: Dr. Farrer’s lab is engaged in research aimed at identifying genes conferring increased risk to substance dependence. Thus far, his group has established several robust genetic associations by applying candidate gene and computationally-driven genome-wide approaches to large human cohorts. However, few of these genes have experimental evidence linking them directly to addiction and no functional variants have been demonstrated. Dr, Farb’s laboratory uses a rodent model system to identify proteins or molecules that influence withdrawal from cocaine use. A TTPAS fellow co-mentored by these faculty could develop a project in Dr. Farrer’s lab to explore the role of a candidate gene pathway (e.g., calcium channels) in addiction and under the direction of Dr. Farb study the effect of inserting proteins encoded by genes showing significant association in humans into the striatum of addicted and control rats.

Example 2: Drs. Saitz and Ciraulo conduct ongoing drug trials for treatments for alcoholism and cocaine addiction. Historically, few drugs have shown high efficacy and the ones that do (e.g., naltrexone for alcohol addiction) are variably effective across patients. Under the joint mentorship of Dr. Saitz or Dr. Ciraulo and Dr. Farrer, a TTPAS fellow could design a pharmacogenetic study to identify genes that influence drug response. This project would require an understanding of genetics and pharmacology and development of skills in statistical genetics, bioinformatics, and clinical trials.

Example 3: Using animal models, Drs. Kantak and Kaplan are collaborating on a research project with the goal of developing a novel cognitive training strategy for improving the efficacy of exposure therapy for cocaine relapse prevention. A critical feature of this research includes an in-depth understanding of neuroplasticity changes associated with cognitive training at the structural, molecular and functional levels. Understanding these factors has the capacity to aid in treatment development in people by serving as neuroplasticity markers for treatment efficacy. The results of their combined efforts also could lead to the development of improved strategies and medications to combat cocaine addiction after exposure therapy in people. Partnering with TTPAS fellows and their mentors from the clinical/population sciences will allow for rapid dissemination of evidence-based strategies developed in rats for direct testing in humans. The fellows will develop skills that encompass state-of-the-art behavioral testing and neuroplasticity assessments in rats, and a platform for translating basic findings into clinical practice.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

College and University Fund for the Social Sciences New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences

New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences

An Invitation to College and University Fund for the Social Sciences

The spaces between fields—or the “borderlands” between disciplines—represent unique opportunities for social inquiry.  Scholarly Borderlands,  an initiative of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), invites proposals for interdisciplinary working groups that ask novel questions, develop new frameworks, rethink methodological approaches, and find innovative answers. Scholarly Borderlands incubates high-risk, high-rewards research efforts.  Recent projects include  Pandemics and Migrant Precarity and the Dreaming Indigenous Futures Working Group.

Convening researchers of different backgrounds, disciplines, and institutions, the  New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences  initiative acts as a catalyst for dialogue and collaboration that produces creative scholarship and builds fresh ties within the social sciences, while connecting them more robustly to work in the natural sciences and humanities.  New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences  working groups may be composed of any cross-disciplinary arrangement of social scientists and other researchers. Projects may address any new or enduring scholarly question, debate, or issue.

This call will provide two years of funding for one to two working groups between 2021 and 2023. A maximum award of $50,000 will be provided to each working group toward direct costs associated with project-related meetings and similar activities, such as travel, accommodations, meals, or research assistance. Funds may not be used for release time for participants. Matching funds provided by the sponsoring colleges or universities are not required, but applications including a commitment to match resources in some manner will be viewed favorably. SSRC staff will be available for consultations regarding project implementation.

Eligibility

This  New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences  RFP is open exclusively to faculty of the  College and University Fund for the Social Sciences (CUF) member institutions . Proposed projects must be led by a principal investigator (PI) from a CUF institution in collaboration with one or two additional co-PIs. Working group leadership should represent at least two different disciplines, and preference will be given to teams with leadership from different institutions. Participants in the project (apart from the PI) may be from any institution, and the SSRC strongly encourages collaborations that include faculty from minority-serving institutions. A proposed project may be housed within any appropriate institutional entity of the sponsoring college or university (e.g., graduate school, research center).

How to Apply

The deadline for applications is Monday, September 13, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. eastern time.  Please visit  apply.ssrc.org  to access the application portal. 

Applicants should prepare a PDF document formatted as follows, single-spaced with a font between 10 and 12 points:

• Project Description (two pages): Please address the significance of the project and general goals for the grant period, making clear the transformative potential of the funding for the long-term impact of the project as well as the rationale behind the proposed group of participants
• Works Cited (one page)
• Budget (one page): A budget outline of proposed expenses for the two-year period, noting any matching funds or resources provided by the host or partnering institutions
• Timeframe (one page): Please outline a timeline for activities no more than 24 months from when funds become available

Participants will also be asked to provide the following within the application portal:

• 250-word bio-sketches of the PI and co-PIs
• A list of likely participants, noting disciplinary or other relevant expertise

Additional Information

Selection Criteria

Criteria for selection, apart from the usual standards of rigorous academic inquiry, will emphasize the innovative groupings of scholars and approaches proposed, including demonstration projects that pursue the application of new methodologies or analytical frameworks or that combine existing approaches in novel ways. Applicants should demonstrate knowledge of the field(s) and the project’s potential to meet specific needs or attain goals within that/those field(s). If similar projects have been conducted in the past or are currently underway, applicants should discuss how the proposed project differs from them, and possibilities for engaging these other researchers.

Each project will be evaluated based on its strength in four key areas: contribution to the social sciences, networks and participants, project design, and potential contribution to social science in the public interest.

Selection Process

Applications will be reviewed by an interdisciplinary committee of scholars convened by the SSRC whose work represents the type of border-crossing approaches we are supporting through this program. 

Graduate Student Participation

We welcome graduate student and postdoc involvement in the proposed activities, and modest budget allocations for research assistance are permitted. Funds are not intended to cover salary expenses for any project participants.

Expected Outputs

While we anticipate that all sponsored projects will produce scholarly journal articles and other publications, these need not be the sole projected products of these collaborations. We are especially interested in projects that broaden reach or impact, such as (but not limited to) the establishment of new pedagogical resources, methodological toolkits for approaching complex research questions, or more public-facing publications and reports. Working group members may also be invited to contribute to the SSRC blog  Items .

Funds will be available for a two-year period for grant activities beginning on or after January 2022. Payment will be made in two installments, with the second installment paid following the receipt of an interim report after one year. A final report will be due two months following the conclusion of the grant period.

Please contact Scholarly Borderlands program staff at  [email protected]  for further guidance in preparing your application.

The New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences initiative is made possible through funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the SAGE Fund for Research Methods, and the College & University Fund for the Social Sciences.

News & Events

Announcing the 2020 Grantees: New Interdisciplinary Projects in the Social Sciences

Privacy overview.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Graduate Students
• Language Sciences Interdisciplinary Programme
• Cambridge Language Sciences
• About overview
• Directory overview
• Academic Staff
• Associate Members
• Visiting Scholars
• Editing your profile
• Impact overview
• Policy overview
• Languages, Society and Policy
• Language Analysis in Schools: Education and Research (LASER)
• Is it possible to differentiate multilingual children and children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD)?
• Refugee Access to Early Childhood Education and Care in the UK
• Modern Languages Educational Policy in the UK
• Multilingualism and Wellbeing in UK
• The Educated Brain seminar series
• What is the value of languages in the UK?
• Improving support for pupils with English as an additional language
• Events overview
• Upcoming Events
• Research Strategy Forum
• Past Events
• Funding overview
• Workshops funded
• Language Sciences Incubator Fund overview
• Incubator Fund projects
• Eligibility & funding criteria
• Feedback from awardees
• Language Sciences Workshop Fund
• Language Sciences Impact Fund
• Jobs & Studentships
• Graduate Students overview
• Language Sciences Interdisciplinary Programme overview
• Applying for the Programme
• Sharable Options
• Examples of Research Projects

Examples of Interdisciplinary Research Projects

The effect of bilingualism on the linguistic and cognitive development of children with autism spectrum disorders, drasco kascelan (dept of theoretical and applied linguistics), under the supervision of dr napoleon katsos (dtal) and dr jenny gibson (faculty of education).

My research aims to investigate certain aspects of cognition and pragmatics in bilingual children with autism spectrum conditions (ASC). Specifically, while neurotypical bilinguals tend to show advantages in pragmatic competence, executive functions, and the Theory of Mind, monolingual individuals with autism seem to be impaired in these areas. In general, families who live in bilingual communities are not encouraged to raise their children with ASC bilingually. This is mainly due to the perceived detrimental effects of bilingualism. However, current literature lacks research on bilingual children with ASC, which makes it hard to conclude what the real effects of bilingualism are on cognition and language development in children with ASC. Hence, this study will examine these aspects of language and cognitive development so as to give a clearer picture of bilingualism in relation to ASC. 

The Linguistic and Cognitive Development of Bilingual Children with Attention Deficit Disorders

Curtis sharma (dept of theoretical and applied linguistics), under the supervision of dr napoleon katsos (dtal) and dr jenny gibson (faculty of education).

Broadly, my research aims to examine the interaction between bilingualism and traits of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in primary school-aged children. One the one hand, I want to find out how this interaction affects aspects of language learning and use, such as pragmatics. On the other hand, ADHD has been linked to deficits in high-level executive functions (for example, attention, working memory, and inhibition) in the brain, which in turn appear to be enhanced in bilinguals. I aim to examine whether enhanced executive functions have any impact on any type or aspect of ADD evident in bilingual children as described above. The vast majority of the literature focuses on ADD in monolinguals, with very little research investigating the intersection of bilingual studies and ADD. Hopefully, this new and exciting investigation will not only add to our understanding of the area, but also yield some benefit to at least some individuals with ADD.

Cambridge Language Sciences is an Interdisciplinary Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. Our virtual network connects researchers from five schools across the university as well as other world-leading research institutions. Our aim is to strengthen research collaborations and knowledge transfer across disciplines in order to address large-scale multi-disciplinary research challenges relating to language research.

JOIN OUR NETWORK

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

• 12 Jul 10th Cambridge Conference on Language Endangerment
• 21 Nov Language Sciences Annual Symposium 2024: How can learning a second language be made effortless?

View all events

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

Climate Change Research Initiative

Program Overview

NASA Earth Science Division’s Early Career Research (ECR) Program Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) is an interdisciplinary, collaborative, year-long STEM engagement, and experiential learning opportunity for educators and graduate students to work directly with NASA scientists and lead research teams in a NASA research project hosted at either NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, CUNY City College of Technology in New York City, NY, or NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. The summer component of each CCRI project also includes undergraduate and high school interns.

During the fall and spring terms of CCRI, the research team will consist of NASA Principal Investigators who lead in-service high school STEM educators and graduate student research assistants to become immersed in a NASA science research area related to climate change. During the summer session, the primary research team will add an undergraduate intern and high school intern to the CCRI research team. The entire team will work collaboratively on a full-time basis to complete the research project, deliver presentations, create a scientific poster and a publishable research paper that will be presented at the CCRI HQ Day at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC , and other science conferences and symposiums.

CCRI Fall 2024-Summer 2025 Research Projects

Research opportunities for educators, grad student assistants, and interns during Fall 2024 through Summer 2025 include the following projects:

• Deciphering Changing Probabilities of Extreme Climate Events in Climate Models and Measurements (GISS)
• Climate Change in the Hudson Estuary — Past, Present, and Future (GISS/LDEO)
• Monitoring and Studying Lakes from Space in a Changing Climate (GISS/CUNY)
• Characterizing the Urban Land Surface Temperature via an Innovative, Multi-Platformed Suite of Satellite and Ground-Based Remote Sensing Technologies (GISS/CUNY)
• SnowEx and Understanding the Role of Snow and Measurements (GSFC)

Work Performance Periods

Fall: October 15, 2024 – December 20, 2024

Spring: January 27, 2025 – April 25, 2025

Summer: June 16, 2025 – August 8, 2025

Applicant Requirements

CCRI applicants must be US citizens. Housing, relocation and travel expenses are not provided. Teachers, graduate students and interns whose locality is regional to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, NY, or NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, are encouraged to apply. Applications are considered upon receipt.

The deadline for educators and graduate students to apply for the CCRI 2024-2025 year-long program is September 2024 . The final application deadline for Summer 2025 CCRI high school and undergraduate internship opportunities is February 28, 2025 at NASA’s Internship Programs website .

Application Requirements

Teachers applying for CCRI should submit a cover letter, resume, and unofficial transcripts. Teachers are also encouraged but not required to submit any additional portfolio exemplars. The cover letter should also include:

• A description of how participating in CCRI will benefit your students, school and community.
• Description of IT and programing skills indicating a self-proficiency ranking.
• Rank in order of preference the projects that the teacher would like to apply to and be considered for.

The selected candidate will be requested to provide a letter of support from their school administration for participation and collaboration in the program.

Performance Requirements

• Educators participating in this opportunity become associate researchers, CCRI education ambassadors and STEM education experts who integrate NASA education resources, platforms, data and content into their classrooms while improving STEM education within their communities.
• Participating high school STEM educators contribute to the research project, assist in the development of a research question and assist in guiding the research team to complete all program deliverables.
• Educators also develop a portfolio of lesson plans that utilizes NASA education resources aligning NASA Science and STEM curricula to the Next Generation Science Standards. The teachers will then incorporate the STEM curriculum into their classrooms and also provide community STEM engagement events related to their NASA research study. The fall and spring term will not conflict with the educators' primary schedule, roles or responsibilities at their school sites.

Graduate Students

Graduate Student Research Assistants applying for CCRI should submit a cover letter, resume and unofficial transcripts. The cover letter should also include:

• A description of how participating in CCRI aligns with your current degree program and anticipated graduation date.
• Description of IT and program skills indicating a self-proficiency ranking.
• Rank in order of preference the projects that the graduate student would like to apply to and be considered for.

The selected candidate will be requested to provide a letter of support from their graduate school advisor for participation and collaboration in the program.

• Graduate Research Assistants contribute to the research project, assist in the development of a research question and assist in guiding the research team to complete all program deliverables.
• For graduate student research assistants, this opportunity will not conflict with class schedules during the fall and spring. It is considered to be a part-time position that supports the graduate student's major area of study.
• All students are required to submit a final report upon completion of the program.

Undergraduates Students/ High School Students

Student interns must complete the entire application within NASA's Internship STEM Gateway .

• Undergraduate and high school students work on real NASA projects with the guidance of a NASA CCRI mentor, a research scientist, and gain practical work experience.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

43 Sample Capstone Articles and Projects

Students in “Senior Seminar in Interdisciplinary Studies” undertake both a comprehensive interdisciplinary research article and an applied project in their field during the course. Here are two examples of student work from the capstone course in Spring 2017:

Alice Reed, Photojournalism Sustainability

Taylor Fournier,  The Performing Arts for Community Empowerment

Interdisciplinary Studies: A Connected Learning Approach Copyright © 2016 by Robin DeRosa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Interdisciplinarity

Sponsored by

Targeted strategies for interdisciplinary innovation

The University of Toronto’s Institutional Strategic Initiatives offer a compelling case study in what large, complex institutions can do to break down disciplinary silos and drive innovation

Schmidt Science Fellows

• More on this topic

Advice for bringing together multiple academic disciplines into one project or approach, examples of interdisciplinary collaboration done well and how to put interdisciplinarity into practice in research, teaching, leadership and impact

Discover schmidt science fellows.

Learn how Schmidt Science Fellows is developing the next generation of science leaders to transcend disciplines and solve the world’s most pressing problems

Researchers in the Device Foundry, one of three facilities comprising the Centre for Research and Applications in Fluidic Technologies (CRAFT), an ISI at the University of Toronto (Image credit: Dahlia Katz)

It makes sense from an efficiency standpoint for universities to decentralise decision making, allowing faculties to manage their own operations. But this devolved organisational structure can present roadblocks for interdisciplinary innovation, leaving universities in need of a strategy to bring researchers together. 

At the University of Toronto, the Institutional Strategic Initiatives (ISIs) office provides this mechanism, and offers a practical example of how large universities can foster an environment in which interdisciplinary science thrives, allowing researchers to solve global grand challenges. 

Timothy Chan, the University of Toronto’s associate vice-president and vice-provost of strategic initiatives, says the university pools funding and academic talent from its various divisions and applies them to interdisciplinary projects.

“The goal is not just to fund initiatives internally, because we can’t do that forever. But it’s to build a track record and set them up for external success,” he says. “ We help build up the initiative, and then when the opportunity arises – whether it is a government grant, an industry partnership, a philanthropic opportunity – we are ready to capitalise because we have already got the structures, the teams and supports in place.”

The ISIs cover a broad range of research topics, including climate change, transport and infrastructure, robotics and AI, and cutting-edge healthcare. The University of Toronto’s diverse research portfolio is crucial, allowing the university to roll the dice on high-risk projects without fear of failure. 

“We need to invest in these kinds of high-risk, high-reward initiatives because if we don’t, it will be harder to compete on the international stage for big opportunities,” Chan says. “We have very steady and stable research programmes that are advancing discoveries, which is great, and that remains a priority for support. But it has become clear that it is also crucial to develop a portfolio into which we make targeted investments, and for us, that’s the ISIs.” 

Partnerships with outside agencies, be they peer institutions, industry or governmental organisations such as the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, with which the University of Toronto has signed an extension to its five-year deal, can play a key role. The university’s partnership with the NRC has deepened over the years. One of the University of Toronto’s research projects is developing small-scale bio-medical fluidic devices that could be used to diagnose diseases without having to send a blood sample back to a laboratory. With a hospital partner now involved, researchers can trial innovations in a clinical setting.

New partnerships can be brokered by building on the success of the ISIs, which help tell the story of research excellence at the University of Toronto. “The ISIs are an excellent way to bring together all of these diverse research stories into a very cohesive narrative,” Chan says. 

The message is clear: the University of Toronto is open for interdisciplinary collaboration and it has the resources to make it happen. 

Times Higher Education has partnered with Schmidt Science Fellows to develop a new ranking measuring universities’ contribution to interdisciplinary science.  Find out how to participate.

Find out more  about Schmidt Science Fellows.

Find out more about the University of Toronto’s ISIs.

You may also like

An introvert’s guide to networking

Confronting generative ai in the fast-changing higher education sector, a diy guide to starting your own journal, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, teach the skills required for a future we can’t yet imagine, what does it mean for students to be ai-ready, rip assessment, ways to seamlessly build breaks into your working day, tips for communication between administrators and faculty, sharpen your students’ interview skills.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 10 December 2021

Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance

• Ye Sun 1   nAff8 ,
• Giacomo Livan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5412-6555 2 , 3 ,
• Athen Ma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9858-4889 4 &
• Vito Latora   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0984-8038 1 , 5 , 6 , 7  

Communications Physics volume  4 , Article number:  263 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9558 Accesses

25 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Complex networks
• Computational science

Interdisciplinary research is on the rise globally. Yet, several studies have shown that it often achieves lower impact compared to more specialized work, and is less likely to attract funding. Here, we seek to reconcile such evidence by analyzing 44,419 research grants awarded by the research councils in the UK. We find that researchers with an interdisciplinary funding track record dominate the network of academic collaborations, both in terms of centrality and knowledge brokerage, but such a competitive advantage does not translate into immediate return. Our results based on a matched pair analysis show that interdisciplinary researchers achieve lower impact with their publications in the short run; however, they eventually outperform their specialized counterparts in funding performance, both in terms of volume and value. These findings suggest that pursuing an interdisciplinary career may require perseverance to overcome extra challenges, but can pave the way for a more successful endeavor.

Similar content being viewed by others

The value of research funding for knowledge creation and dissemination: A study of SNSF Research Grants

Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers

Knowledge and social relatedness shape research portfolio diversification

Introduction.

Interdisciplinary research is increasingly regarded as the key to tackle contemporary complex societal challenges and to stimulate scientific innovation 1 , 2 , 3 . As high-impact discoveries often occur at the intersection of disciplines 4 , 5 , scientists have become more engaged in research areas that transcend the boundaries between traditional fields 6 , 7 , and increasingly collaborate across such boundaries 8 .

A higher uptake in interdisciplinary research has been widely reported across academia 9 , as there is now a much greater level of knowledge transfer between subjects among researchers 10 . Yet, these trends are somewhat intriguing when one looks at the evidences available on research outcomes, which suggest that—more often than not—interdisciplinary research may be an unrewarding enterprise in today’s highly competitive academic environment. In fact, it is only interdisciplinary work based on proximal combinations of different fields that achieves recognition and impact (as quantified by accrued citations), whereas distal combinations are usually perceived as too risky or heterodox 11 . Similarly, interdisciplinary research is often associated with lower citation rates 12 . For example, Levitt and Thelwall 13 analyzed the publications from two selected years in the Scopus dataset and found that in the fields of life sciences, health sciences, and physical sciences, the average number of citations received by monodisciplinary articles is approximately twice that of multidisciplinary articles. Furthermore, by examining the research proposals submitted to the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Programme over 5 continuous years, Bromhaml et al. 14 determined that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a specialized focus.

Here, we ask whether interdisciplinary researchers share the same gloomy outlook in a longer time span and wider database. To this end, we compare the career progressions of researchers with a track record of research funding that can be unambiguously classified as either interdisciplinary or monodisciplinary. We examine data detailing more than 44,000 research grants funded between 2006 and 2018 by the seven discipline-based UK national research councils (collectively forming the bulk of the largest public funding body in the UK), which provide funding to universities and academic institutions to undertake research across a broad spectrum of fields, including arts and humanities, biology, economics, engineering and physics, medicine, environmental sciences and astronomy (details in Methods and Supplementary Table  1 ).

Through network analysis, we discover that researchers active across different disciplines play a crucial role of knowledge brokers in the academic collaboration network, bridging the gap between subjects and researchers that may otherwise remain disconnected. By means of a matched pair experimental design we find that, despite achieving comparatively lower impact, in the long run interdisciplinary researchers outperform their discipline-specific peers in funding performance, both in terms of number of grants and their funding size. Our findings help explain the continuous drive on interdisciplinary research, and provide insights on its role in the modern research funding landscape that may be useful to researchers and funding bodies alike.

Evolution of cross-council behaviors

Between 2006 and 2018, the average team size increases over time, with team composition becoming more cross-institutional (Fig.  1 a, b). This demonstrates an increasing trend of collaborative science in the UK funding landscape, which is consistent with rising teamwork and multi-institutional research in scientific publications 15 , 16 , 17 . A funded project can be associated with one or more research subjects out of 104 possible subjects. The level of cross-disciplinarity shows an upward trajectory (Fig.  1 c), with nearly half of funded projects (44%) being related to at least two research subjects.

a The typical number of team members per grant shows a significant increase over time. b The average number of affiliations participating in each grant grows with time. c The average number of subjects listed in each grant continues to rise over time. In panels a to c , the error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. d The fraction of cross-council investigators increases over time. In panels a to d , the solid line and the shaded area represent the regression line and 95% confidence intervals, respectively. Each regression has also been annotated with the corresponding Pearson’s r. *** p  < 0.01, ** p  < 0.05, * p  < 0.1. e , f The co-activity network of investigators in two time windows, 2006–2008 and 2016–2018. Node sizes are proportional to the number of investigators that have received funding from each research council. Two councils are connected if they have both supported at least one investigator, and the link width is weighted by the ratio between the observed number of investigators funded in both councils and the expected number based on a randomized null model. Here, seven research councils are considered: Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Science and Technology Facilities Council (SFTC). Compared to 2006–2008, the links with increased weights in 2016–2018 have been highlighted in red. g , h The percentage of cross-council investigators in different institutional tiers and periods. Here, the research institutions are stratified into two tiers by checking whether their total awarded funding is larger than the average amount per institution (i.e., 1.02 × 10 8 ). Box widths are proportional to the number of investigators in Tier I and Tier II, respectively. Box heights are proportional to the percentage of cross-council and within-council investigators. The institutions in Tier I have a higher proportion of cross-council investigators than those in Tier II in both 3-y time windows ( χ 2 test p  < 0.0001, odds ratio = 1.67 for 2006–2008; p  < 0.0001, odds ratio = 1.28 for 2016–2018). The same conclusions have been reached when different time window lengths and different criteria of institutional stratification have been used (see Supplementary Note  4 ).

The above finding is consistent with the general shift towards more cross-disciplinary research 1 . However, it does not specify whether the same consideration may apply to individual researchers. To examine this, we divide the investigators into two groups: cross-council investigators and within-council investigators. The former are those who have obtained funding from at least two different research councils; while the latter are those who have received funding from one research council only. Admittedly, this is a rather coarse-grained separation that does not account for the different sizes of different councils and potential overlaps between them. Yet, let us reiterate that the fundamental units of our analysis are researchers. In this respect, we expect such separation to be able to capture fundamental differences in terms of career choices and breadth of research interests. In particular, we expect the cross-council investigators cohort to be made both of genuinely interdisciplinary researchers (i.e., those active in areas at the interface between well-defined disciplines) and multidisciplinary researchers (i.e., those active in more than one well-defined research area). Although such difference may be relevant in other contexts, in the following we will take the position that being a cross-council investigator represents the main indicator that a researcher seeks funding to push disciplinary boundaries with their work. To examine how the two groups of investigators evolve over time, we calculate the fraction of cross-council investigators in each year, and observe a marked increase as expected, from around 0.17 in 2006 to 0.26 in 2018 (Fig.  1 d).

To better understand how this rise in cross-council investigators alters the funding landscape, we construct a co-activity network whereby nodes represent research councils. Two councils share a link if they both have supported at least one investigator, and links are weighted with the ratio between the observed number of investigators funded in both councils and the expected number based on a randomized null model (Supplementary Note  2 ). Starting with the 2006–2008 window (Fig.  1 e), cross-council investigators are most commonly found between BBSRC and MRC, and between BBSRC and NERC. A decade later (2016-2018 window), the co-activity network becomes fully connected (Fig.  1 f) with two new links connecting AHRC with MRC and STFC, respectively. In addition, the link weights of cross-council investigators between BBSRC and NERC, and between AHRC and ESRC soar by 29% and 90%, respectively. These shifts in the funding landscape appear to be the response to the UKRI policy to support research across council boundaries and enhance the culture of multidisciplinary research 18 .

Elite institutions have been found to be prime recipients of research funding, as they are key in orchestrating collaborations 19 and generating research outputs 20 , 21 . We consider the total amount of funding received by institutions between 2006 and 2018 as a proxy of their national rank, and examine the level of cross-council activities among their investigators. For the sake of simplicity, institutions are grouped into two tiers, with the top tier consisting of 40 institutions (Tier I) that have received a higher than average total funding over the aforementioned 13 years period, and the remaining institutions forming the bottom tier (Tier II). There are noticeably more cross-council investigators in top tier institutions (Fig.  1 g, h and Supplementary Note  3 ), in line with previous findings on the governing role on research innovation among top institutions 22 . On the other hand, the proportion of cross-council investigators in the bottom tier shows a bigger increase, from 18% to 26%, which is twice that of the top tier (with an increase from 27% to 31%).

Structural advantage in the collaboration network

Our results have shown that interdisciplinary research is undoubtedly gaining momentum, with more cross-council investigators emerging across the university sector. To better understand this shift in collaborative science, we examine research partnerships among investigators and study the roles played by the cross-council and within-council groups. Here, network nodes are the investigators, and two investigators are connected if they have partnered in one or more research projects.

Cross-council investigators consistently show a much broader collaborative practice with a much higher average degree (Fig.  2 a). They are also more likely to occupy prime locations or gateways for information dissemination, as demonstrated by both a higher closeness and betweenness centrality. Indeed, we find that cross-council investigators are much more likely to be brokers of information—as they are characterized by a higher average effective network size 23 —suggesting that they play a central role in establishing partnerships. Overall, the more diversified their funding source, the more advantageous their network position appears to be (Fig.  2 b). By comparing the two groups of investigators with respect to their number of grants, our results on network metrics show systematic differences in their collaboration patterns (Fig.  2 c), and the differences are most apparent among the more successful investigators.

Each column corresponds to a different network property, namely: degree centrality, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality and normalized effective size. a Cross-council investigators significantly outperform the within-council investigators in all four network properties (Welch’s t -test, p  < 0.001 in all cases). b Network metrics among investigators increase with the number of councils ( N f u n d e r ) they have received funding from. c Cross-council investigators consistently have a network advantage over within-council investigators with reference to degree, closeness, betweenness and normalized effective size. N g r a n t denotes the number of grants received by investigators in cross-council and within-council groups. The error bars and shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals.

Research outcomes and scientific impact

Is there a detectable difference between the cross-council and within-council investigators in terms of research outcomes and scientific impact? To address this question, we need to control for the bias caused by possible confounding factors, so that the observed differences in research outcomes and scientific impact between the two groups can be more confidently ascribed to interdisciplinarity (i.e., cross-council funding behavior). Here, we perform a propensity score matching analysis 24 whereby the career profile of a principal investigator (PI) is characterized by five confounding factors, namely the institutional ranking (measured by the total amount of funding received by the PI’s institution), the number of grants awarded to a given PI, and their average funding value per grant, team size and project duration. The last three factors have been adjusted to account for variations in values in different disciplines, and over time (Supplementary Note  6 and Supplementary Fig.  10 ). A cross-council investigator is then paired with a within-council investigator if the two share a comparable career profile between 2006 and 2013 (Fig.  3 a), thereby eliminating the effect of these confounding factors on the phenomena under investigation (Fig.  3 b and Supplementary Fig.  11 ). The analysis yields a total of 958 pairs of cross-council and within-council PIs.

a An illustrative example of cross-council (orange) and within-council (blue) principal investigators (PIs). Both PIs obtained 3 research grants during the observation window from 2006 to 2013, but the within-council PI received grants from the same research council (all three from Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)), while the cross-council received grants from 2 different councils (two from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), one from Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)). b Matching the cross-council and within-council PIs with similar career profiles in terms of funding performance. We match 5 different characteristics for PIs: institutional ranking of a given PI (whereby institutions are ranked by their total amount of funding between 2006 and 2018), the number of grants a given PI has received, their average grant value, average team size, and average project duration. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups of PIs across the five dimensions following the pairing. The shaded areas represent 95% confidence intervals. c Differences in research outcomes between cross-council and within council PIs on the average number of papers reported per project, the average number of total citations received per grant (calculated as the average of the total citations received by papers associated with a grant), and the average number of citations received per paper per grant (calculated first as the average of the citations received by papers associated with a grant, and then averaged over the total number of grants awarded to a PI). Citations are considered within 5 years after publication, and have been normalized by the average citations of all papers belonging to the same year and discipline in Microsoft Academic Graph dataset. All dimensions considered in panels b and c (with the exception of institutional ranking and number of grants) are quantified by calculating their percentile rank in the same council and year. The significance levels shown refer to t-tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. *** p  < 0.01, ** p  < 0.05, * p  < 0.1. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

For each matched pair of PIs, we compare their research performance based on the achievements reported in their grants awarded during 2006 and 2013 (but omitted projects that go beyond 2018 as the achievements reported would be incomplete), including the average number of papers reported per project, the average number of total citations received per grant, and the average number of citations received per paper per grant. Again, these metrics have been normalized across the different disciplines, and over time (Supplementary Note  6 ). We observe that while the two groups of investigators produce more or less the same number of publications, cross-council investigators clearly receive less citations in general than their within-council counterparts (Fig.  3 c and Supplementary Table  2 ), both in terms of total citations ( t -test, p =0.0021) and mean citations ( t -test, p =0.0004), which is consistent with findings in prior studies 6 , 12 .

Long-term funding trajectory

We finally compare the funding trajectory of cross-council investigators to that of within-council investigators. We refer to 2006–2010 as the in-sample period where investigators are paired, and 2011–2018 as the out-of-sample period in which funding performance of each pair of investigators is compared (Fig.  4 a). On this occasion, the pairing is done by not only matching their career profiles but also their research performance (i.e., reported achievements in grants described in the previous section, Fig.  4 b and Supplementary Fig.  12 ), yielding 709 investigator pairs. The cross-council investigator group outperform their within-council counterparts, as demonstrated by the notable gains in the number of grants and their value; as well as the average team size (Fig.  4 c, Supplementary Table  3 ). For the sake of robustness, we repeat our analyses across different time periods, reaching the same conclusions (Supplementary Figs.  13 and 14 ). Moreover, we check a different definition of interdisciplinary investigators by examining the number of fields (based on the classification by Microsoft Academic Graph) in which they published, again reaching similar conclusions (Supplementary Note  7 ). These findings uncover previously unknown positive aspects of an interdisciplinary research career, providing a much needed optimistic outlook for those who wish to pursue this line of work 14 .

a An illustrative example of comparison in terms of long-term funding performance of cross-council (orange) and within-council (blue) principal investigators (PIs) with similar funding profiles. Both PIs obtained 2 research grants during the in-sample period from 2006 to 2010, but the within-council PI received grants from the same research council (both from Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)), while the cross-council PI received grants from 2 different councils (one from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), and the other from Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)). For the in-sample period 2006–2010, we pair the PIs with similar career profiles, while for the out-of-sample period 2011–2018, we compare the funding performance of each paired PIs. b Matching the cross-council and within-council PIs with similar career profiles in terms of both funding performance and research outcomes during the in-sample period. We match 8 different factors for PIs between 2006 and 2010 as follows: institutional ranking of a given PI (whereby institutions are ranked by their total amount of funding between 2006 and 2018), the number of grants a given PI has received, their average grant value, average team size, average project duration, average number of publications reported, average number of total citations received per grant (calculated as the average of the total citations received by papers associated with a grant), and the average number of citations received per paper per grant (calculated first as the average of the citations received by papers associated with a grant, and then averaged over the total number of grants awarded to a PI). Citations are considered within 5 years after publication, and have been normalized by the average citations of all papers belonging to the same year and discipline in Microsoft Academic Graph dataset. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups of PIs across the eight factors following the pairing. The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence interval. c Difference in long-term funding performance between cross-council and within-council PIs in the following eight years (2011 to 2018). Cross-council PIs outperform within-council PIs in grant volume, value and team size. The significance levels shown refer to t-tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. *** p  < 0.01, ** p  < 0.05, * p  < 0.1. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

In this paper, we compare the careers of interdisciplinary investigators with those of investigators who are tied to a specific discipline. In line with other findings on the rise of interdisciplinary research 9 , 10 , we find that the fraction of cross-council investigators increases steadily during our period of observation. We also find that cross-council investigators sit more centrally than their peers in the academic collaboration network, which in turn provides them with considerable competitive advantage in terms of knowledge brokerage opportunities, but such a competitive advantage does not immediately translate into a higher academic impact in their publications.

There are a number of possible reasons for the comparatively lower impact of projects led by cross-council investigators. It is reasonable to argue that their role as knowledge brokers leads to considerable costs—both in terms of building collaborative relationship and establishing a common language to communicate across disciplines 25 —which may indirectly suppress their productivity. Also, despite a lack of consensus on its overall impact 26 , 27 , a number of studies have shown that interdisciplinary research tends to garner recognition over longer periods of time compared to more specialized research 6 , 28 . In this respect, we ought to acknowledge that our results may partially be due to the duration covered by our available data, which constrains our analyses to quantify impact with citations received within 5 years of publication. It is plausible that our conclusions about impact may be different over longer time periods. This limitation notwithstanding, our findings suggest that it may be very challenging for a junior researcher to pursue an independent interdisciplinary academic career. Indeed, all current practices of academic impact evaluation are to some extent influenced by citation-based bibliometric indicators 29 and, therefore, may be stacked against junior interdisciplinary researchers receiving citations at a slower pace 30 .

However, the main result of our study shows that cross-council investigators eventually outperform their peers in terms of funding. This result is robust and statistically significant across different dimensions, with respect to the number of funded grants, the average funded value and the average team size per grant awarded. Although at face value this may seem to contradict previous findings on the lower funding success rate of interdisciplinary research 14 , we believe that this is not necessarily the case. Our results primarily focus on the funding performance of investigators in terms of volume and value—not of grant proposals—and do not speak to their success rate, as data about rejected proposals are not available to us. It is therefore possible that interdisciplinary investigators in our data may still secure funding at a lower success rate, although this would directly imply that they submit proposals in much larger numbers than their peers. Furthermore, let us mention that applicants to the vast majority of funding schemes from the UK research councils must hold a permanent position in a research institution in order to act as PIs. In this respect, survival bias does not represent a potential limitation to our analysis, as all the investigators in our data are—by definition—survivors.

All in all, we believe that the more plausible explanation for our findings is that indeed interdisciplinary investigators develop—on average—a better ability to attract funding in the long run. Squaring this with their lower impact in the short run suggests that interdisciplinary investigators may be late bloomers who tend to achieve success over a longer period of time; however, there are indications that their more diversified research portfolios could give them an edge in securing long-term tenure 31 .

We collect 44,419 research projects conducted between 2006 and 2018 from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) , which includes the grant information from seven national discipline-based research councils, namely AHRC, BBSRC, ESRC, EPSRC, MRC, NERC and STFC (see Supplementary Note  1 ). Note that the disciplinary boundaries of the research councils system in the UK are explicitly defined, and an investigator would submit their research proposal to the most appropriate council by checking the remit domains of each possible council. The basic information for each research council has been summarized in Supplementary Table  1 . The research grants cover the full spectrum of academic disciplines from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry and engineering, social sciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities, which enables us to comprehensively investigate research and innovation in the UK. For each research project, we record the information of the title, abstract, the start date and end date, PI and co-investigators (CI), fund value, lead/collaborating institutions and scientific outcomes (i.e., publications). A grant is considered to be awarded to the PI and the affiliation of the PI. Information on how the overall funding of a given grant is divided among the rest of the investigators (and their affiliations) is not made available. Among them, there are 37, 677 research projects that have been classified with at least one research subject (a total of 104 subjects). All the research projects, investigators and institutions have been assigned with unique IDs, which eliminates the problem of name disambiguation.

For each research grant, all related papers published are recorded with the information of title and DOI. This provides the possibility for us to link the UKRI research grant database with the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) database by precisely matching the titles and DOI of the publications in two databases. MAG is a database consisting of a large amount of scientific publications, their citation records, dates of publication, information regarding the authorship, publication venues and more. We wish to point out that the dataset specifies the keywords for each paper, as well as the position of each such keyword in a field-of-study hierarchy, the highest level of which is comprised of 19 disciplines. Therefore, this connection between the two datasets not only offers us additional information about each paper, it also allows us to trace citations of each publication within the MAG and how these citations compare with other papers published in the same year and discipline. In the end, we match a total of 409,546 publications and calculate their accumulated citations 5 years after publication.

Evolution of cross-council behavior

In the sliding window analysis, only investigators with at least two research grants have been tracked. We exclude those with one research grant only as they will distort the number of within-council investigators. Supplementary Fig.  1 illustrates the grant history of a cross-council investigator and a within-council investigator. Although the two investigators have obtained the same number of research grants throughout the studied period, their funding trajectories from the research councils are strikingly different.

Collaboration network

The collaboration network is constructed by referring project partnerships between investigators between 2006 and 2018. In this network, nodes are investigators (PIs or CIs), and a link refers to a project partnership between two nodes. Research grants comprising only one investigator (i.e. only the PI) have been excluded from the network. We extract the largest connected component (LCC) of the collaboration network which consists of 86% of the investigators.

We then perform a node-level network analysis on all the investigators who are in the LCC, and only include those with at least 2 research grants during the studied period. In total, we obtain 6911 cross-council investigators and 12,563 within-council investigators. To further test whether this structural advantage exists across different time periods, we examine the collaboration network in the first 5-y window (2006–2010) and last 5-y window (2014–2018) of the available period, and find that our conclusions remain unchanged (see Supplementary Note  5 and Supplementary Figs.  8– 9 ).

Normalized effective size

The normalized effective size of node i ’s ego network measures to which extent each of the first neighbors of i is non-redundant with respect to the other neighbors. Formally, for the case of unweighted and undirected graphs, the normalized effective size of a node i can be defined as 23 :

where k i is the degree of the node and C i is its clustering coefficient. This indicator can vary from 0 to 1 with ζ i  = 0 when the neighborhoods of i are fully connected, and ζ i taking its largest value 1 when i is the center of a star, and there are no links among its collaborators. Generally, the larger the value of ζ i , the less connected the neighborhood of i is, and consequently, the higher the brokerage opportunities for investigator i . Investigators acting as brokers, on the one hand, tend to exhibit weak ties with their collaborators. On the other hand, they are likely to gain exposure to a greater variance and novelty of information and link people with different ideas and perspectives 32 , 33 .

Propensity score matching

To avoid the potential bias of covariates among PIs in the cross-council and within-council groups, we perform a propensity score matching analysis based on multi-variable logistic regression models, which is a statistical technique typically used to infer causality in observational studies 24 . Propensity scores (PSs) are defined as the predicted probability of being a cross-council PI conditional upon a set of observed covariates. Cross-council PIs are matched to within-council PIs based on their PSs in one-to-one ratio, using a nearest-neighbor algorithm within a caliper of 0.01 on the probability scale. After the matching, the characteristics of cross-council and within-council groups in all observed covariates are statistically indistinguishable, with standardized differences d  < 0.1, t-tests p -value > 0.1 for the sample means, and Kruskal-Wallis tests p -value > 0.1 for the entire distributions.

Data availability

The UKRI funding data used in the paper are publicly accessible and can be downloaded via https://www.ukri.org . The publication and citation data are available via Microsoft Academic ( https://academic.microsoft.com ). All other data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The code for used to perform pair matching is available at https://github.com/benmiroglio/pymatch . All other codes used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ledford, H. How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525 , 308 (2015).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Rylance, R. Grant giving: global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature 525 , 313–315 (2015).

Sun, Y. & Latora, V. The evolution of knowledge within and across fields in modern physics. Sci. Rep. 10 , 12097 (2020).

Szell, M., Ma, Y. & Sinatra, R. A nobel opportunity for interdisciplinarity. Nat. Phys. 14 , 1075–1078 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Thurner, S., Liu, W., Klimek, P. & Cheong, S. A. The role of mainstreamness and interdisciplinarity for the relevance of scientific papers. PLoS ONE 15 , e0230325 (2020).

Van Noorden, R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525 , 306–307 (2015).

Ma, Y. & Uzzi, B. Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 12608–12615 (2018).

Brown, R. R., Deletic, A. & Wong, T. H. Interdisciplinarity: How to catalyse collaboration. Nature 525 , 315 (2015).

Battiston, F. et al. Taking census of physics. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1 , 89–97 (2019).

Zeng, A. et al. Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1–11 (2019).

Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I. & D’Este, P. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? the different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE 10 , e0135095 (2015).

Pan, L. & Katrenko, S. A Review of the UK’s Interdisciplinary Research Using a Citation-based Approach (Elsevier, 2015).

Levitt, J. M. & Thelwall, M. Is multidisciplinary research more highly cited? a macrolevel study. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 , 1973–1984 (2008).

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R. & Hua, X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534 , 684–687 (2016).

Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J. & Amaral, L. A. N. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308 , 697–702 (2005).

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316 , 1036–1039 (2007).

Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S. & Uzzi, B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322 , 1259–1262 (2008).

Stokstad, E. A research behemoth is born in britain. Science 359 , 1319–1319 (2018).

Torres-Olave, B., Brown, A. M., Franco Carrera, L. & Ballinas, C. Not waving but striving: research collaboration in the context of stratification, segmentation, and the quest for prestige. J. High. Educ. 91 , 275–299 (2020).

Li, W., Aste, T., Caccioli, F. & Livan, G. Early coauthorship with top scientists predicts success in academic careers. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1–9 (2019).

Way, S. F., Morgan, A. C., Larremore, D. B. & Clauset, A. Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 10729–10733 (2019).

Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J. & Latora, V. Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 14760–14765 (2015).

Latora, V., Nicosia, V. & Panzarasa, P. Social cohesion, structural holes, and a tale of two measures. J. Stat. Phys. 151 , 745–764 (2013).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. A. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Anal. 15 , 199–236 (2007).

Goring, S. J. et al. Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12 , 39–47 (2014).

Larivière, V., Haustein, S. & Börner, K. Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLoS ONE 10 , e0122565 (2015).

Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M. & Stanko, T. L. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Adm. Sci. Q. 62 , 105–139 (2017).

Wang, J., Thijs, B. & Glänzel, W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 10 , e0127298 (2015).

Moher, D. et al. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 16 , e2004089 (2018).

Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P. & Stirling, A. How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: a comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Res. Policy 41 , 1262–1282 (2012).

Franzoni, C. & Rossi-Lamastra, C. Academic tenure, risk-taking and the diversification of scientific research. Ind. Innov. 24 , 691–712 (2017).

Burt, R. S. Structural holes: The social structure of competition (Harvard university press, 2009).

Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q. 45 , 425–455 (2000).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Xiancheng Li for sharing the MAG data. V.L. acknowledges the support for this research from the Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship “CREATE: the network components of creativity and success”. G.L. acknowledges support by an EPSRC Early Career Fellowship in Digital Economy (Grant No. EP/N006062/1).

Author information

Present address: Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6EA, UK

Authors and Affiliations

School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK

Ye Sun & Vito Latora

Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6EA, UK

Giacomo Livan

Systemic Risk Centre, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK

Dipartimento di Fisica ed Astronomia, Università di Catania and INFN, 95123, Catania, Italy

Vito Latora

The Alan Turing Institute, The British Library, London, NW1 2DB, UK

Complexity Science Hub Vienna (CSHV), Vienna, Austria

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors designed research; Y.S. collected the data and performed research; Y.S., G.L., A.M. and V.L. analyzed data and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Livan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review information

Communications Physics thanks Keith Burghardt and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, peer review file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A. et al. Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance. Commun Phys 4 , 263 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00769-z

Download citation

Received : 22 June 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 10 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00769-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

UTA increases interdisciplinary grants by 40% in 2024

Tuesday, Jul 09, 2024 • Katherine Egan Bennett : contact

The Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation at The University of Texas at Arlington has awarded seven Interdisciplinary Research Program (IRP) grants totaling nearly $140,000 to foster collaboration between groups that do not typically work together. This represents an increase in funding of 40% over the grants awarded in 2023 .

“UT Arlington has increased its support of interdisciplinary research as we know that many of today’s great societal challenges can only be solved when innovators with various types expertise come together,” said Kate C. Miller, vice president for research and innovation. “Many federal, state and private funding agencies also recognize the importance multidisciplinary research, and that’s why so many have integrated approaches at the core of their missions. UTA’s support of collaborative research will have an impact on society today while also making these projects more viable for additional research collaboration.”

The 2024 recipients of the IRP grants are:

• Architecture Assistant Professor Mahmoud Bayat, public affairs and planning Professor Jianling Li, civil engineering Professor Stephen P. Mattingly, landscape architecture and public affairs and planning Professor Qisheng Pan, and civil engineering Professor Mohsen Shahandashti for their project “Leveraging AI and Digital Twins for Enhancing Resilience of Transportation Networks.” Managing aging infrastructure, like bridges and roads, is a critical issue in the United States. With this project, the team is developing a new approach that uses virtual models of objects called “digital twins” and artificial intelligence (AI) to create a dynamic model of transportation networks to optimize maintenance. The solution will allow transportation agencies to better allocate resources, reduce the time and costs associated with bridge assessments, and improve the overall management and resilience of transportation assets.
• Bioengineering Professor Khosrow Behbehani and psychology Professor Tracy Greer for their project “Assessing the Validity of Wearable Heart Rate Variability Data as a Potential Tool to Assist in Pain Management.” Exercise is an important component of pain management, but post-exercise discomfort can keep individuals from engaging in it. Researchers have found that tracking the time between heartbeats (called heart rate variability or HRV) on wrist-worn wearable devices may help guide treatment and improve exercise tolerance. This research will test whether wearables are a valid measurement tool for HRV and if HRV is an important related outcome of pain management.
• Biology Associate Professor Jeffrey P. Demuth, biology Assistant Professor Theodora Koromila and computer science and engineering Assistant Professor Jacob Luber for their project “Single-Cell Multi-Omics of Sex Chromosome Gene Regulation.” Differences in DNA and gene content between X and Y sex chromosomes in males affect gene regulation and chromosome segregation during sperm development. This project will examine the natural variation in sex chromosomes using advanced computational analysis, ultra-high-resolution microscopy, and single-cell sequencing to reveal mechanisms underlying sex chromosome dynamics throughout spermatogenesis. The team’s development of multi-omics tools (an approach that looks at many layers of biological data) for single-cell analyses will inform the causes of fertility decline and sex differences in disease prevalence.
• Communication Assistant Professor Grace Brannon; industrial, manufacturing, and systems engineering Associate Professor Shouyi Wang; and kinesiology Assistant Professor Liao Yue for their project “A Mixed Methods Approach to Leverage Machine Learning in the Development of Personalized mHealth Physical Activity Interventions.” Studies have shown the health benefits of physical activity, but it’s challenging to start and maintain a workout schedule. In this project, researchers will use machine learning to predict how a person's blood sugar level corresponds to daily activity levels. With that data, they will then create an exercise plan so individuals can see how their daily activity levels affect their health, with the goal of motivating individuals to stay physically active.
• Kinesiology Professor Paul J. Fadel, art and art history Senior Lecturer Benjamin C. Wagley and UTARI Principal Research Science Muthu Wijesundara for their project “Assessment of Engagement and Cardiovascular Responses in Individuals with a Mobility Disability Using an Adaptive Exergame Machine for Increasing Physical Activity.” Although regular exercise helps people with mobility issues avoid additional health problems, lack of specialized exercise equipment for people with disabilities can sideline these individuals. This project focuses on the use of an adaptive exergame machine, a type of accessible exercise equipment with a video game component that keeps users engaged in exercise while monitoring their activity and providing feedback. The team will use the data from this study to identify areas of improvement so this adaptive equipment can be expanded for more widespread use.
• Modern languages Associate Professor Alicia R. Rueda-Acedo, social work Associate Professor of Practice Karla Arenas-Itotia, social work Assistant Professor Jaclyn Kirsch, and College of Nursing and Health Innovation Assistant Dean of Simulation and Technology Jennifer Roye for their project “Increasing Access to Health Services for Limited English Proficiency Patients Using Simulation-Based Learning: A Pilot Study.” People with limited English-speaking skills often have difficulty accessing health care services due to the language barrier. In this project, researchers will compare the use of family members vs. trained medical interpreters when preparing limited-English-speaking patients for hospital discharge. The results of the program will be circulated to help health professionals improve outcomes for people with limited English.
• Physics and bioengineering Associate Professor Yujie Chi and nursing, biology, bioengineering and kinesiology Professor Zui Pain for their project “Comprehensive Characterization of Low-Dose Radiation Effects on Cardiomyocytes: Dose-Responses and Molecular Mechanisms.” Researchers know a lot about the damage caused by large amounts of radiation, such as from a nuclear explosion, but there is little known about any health problems caused by small amounts of radiation, such as radiation emitted from X-rays or going through security gates. This team will perform advanced biological measurements and radiation modeling using a unique radiation and cardiac experimental system. They hope to identify early biomarkers for heart problems caused by small amounts of radiation—the first step to identifying any risks and possible health interventions.

The goal of the IRP grants is to advance interdisciplinary research at UTA in alignment with the University’s strategic plan to be recognized as an international leader in research, scholarship and innovation . Each project lasts one year in duration. At the end of the year, recipients are expected to submit applications for additional funding outside the University with the aim of further developing their findings.

Interdisciplinary Research with Primary Sources (Workshop, Summer 2024)

• Introduction
• Origins of this Workshop
• Differing approaches between disciplines
• Fundamental Questions
• Difficulties
• Interdisciplinary Approaches to your own work

Summary of Workshop

All research builds upon the examination of primary sources, yet the definition of “primary sources” varies across disciplines. For historians, primary sources are archival documents; for psychologists they are observation results; for archeologists they are physical materials.  Such differences in terminology and methodology can make interdisciplinary work difficult, as each field has unique views upon primary sources.

This workshop provides an overview of how different fields within the Humanities and Social Sciences define and utilize primary sources, followed by a discussion of how embracing these disciplinary differences can improve interdisciplinary research projects.

Questions for our Workshop

• What is a primary source?
• How does the definition vary between disciplines?
• Why does it matter?
• What are some areas in which the definition fundamentally differs between disciplines?
• What are the difficulties of using interdisciplinary approaches to primary sources?
• What are the Strengths of using interdisciplinary approaches to primary sources?
• What are some ways you might use interdisciplinary primary sources?
• Discuss how disciplines within the Humanities & Social Sciences define and use primary sources.
• Explore the difficulties these disciplinary differences cause while undertaking interdisciplinary research.
• Considering how these issues, though significant, can ultimately prove an asset.
• Discuss as a group how interdisciplinary approaches might be used in your own projects.
• Next: Origins of this Workshop >>
• Last Updated: Jul 10, 2024 11:06 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.wm.edu/PrimarySources2024

Search Utah State University:

Science & Technology

Passion for Research Propels USU Biochemist to Nutrition & Integrative Physiology Grad Program

Honors student, Kinkead Capstone Award recipient, Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District intern and recent graduate Marcus Hayden says his USU undergrad career prepared him well for doctoral studies.

By Mary-Ann Muffoletto | July 09, 2024

Recent USU Honors graduate Marcus Hayden received the 2024 Joyce Kinkead Outstanding Honors Capstone Award in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines. The Kaysville, Utah native, pictured holding a mechanical aspirator used to collect and transport small numbers of mosquitoes, is working as an intern for the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District this summer. He begins graduate studies at the University of Utah this fall. (Photo Credit: SLCMAD)

While still a student at Utah’s Farmington High School and during his undergraduate career at Utah State University, Marcus Hayden pursued a variety of research projects and science activities crossing diverse interdisciplinary borders. Hayden, an Honors student who graduated from USU in May 2024 with a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, received USU’s Joyce Kinkead Outstanding Honors Capstone Award in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines this past spring.

“This award, with the Peak Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship I received previously, neatly bookended my research journey at Utah State,” Hayden says. “I am very grateful and very humbled by these prestigious honors.”

The Kaysville, Utah native is currently working as an intern for the Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District. In the fall, he begins a doctoral program in nutrition and integrative physiology at the University of Utah.

Hayden’s path to science began with participation in STEM activities at an early age, and the intrepid scholar seized upon extracurricular academic pursuits.

“I was lucky to work as an aquaponics intern at USU Kaysville, where I got to manage fish, grow hydroponic produce and help create new hydroponic methods,” he says. “Realizing I could continue to pursue hands-on learning experiences by attending USU in Logan, I knew Utah State would be a great fit for me.”

Entering Utah State in fall 2020, Hayden remained undaunted by pandemic restrictions and closures. The Undergraduate Research Fellow began volunteering in biology faculty mentor Noelle Beckman’s lab during his first year. There, he pursued a chemical ecology project exploring how secondary metabolites in the leaves of plants from Panama affect seed dispersal.

His next research foray, through the Talmage Chemistry Research Internship program at Brigham Young University, involved synthesizing oligosaccharides of a strain of Streptococcus pneumoniae for vaccine development.

“That experience was pivotal, as I realized to wanted to work in research that more closely impacted human health,” says Hayden, who paired a biology minor with his biochemistry major.

Back in Logan, the undergrad joined Abby Benninghoff’s lab in the Department of Animal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, where he crafted his award-winning Honors capstone project, “Cocoa Polyphenols Modulate the Gut Microbiome in a Site-Specific Manner in Mice.”

“From my initial interview with Dr. Benninghoff, I could tell she believed in me,” Hayden says. “She and her graduate student Eliza Stewart taught me so many research skills and helped me develop as a scientist. Writing the 70-page manuscript for my capstone project was one of the most challenging things I did as an undergrad. Dr. Benninghoff and Eliza encouraged me at each step and patiently answered my many questions. That experience prepared me well for graduate school.”

Prior to developing his capstone project, Hayden secured a USU Undergraduate Research and Creative Opportunities (URCO) grant, along with his Peak Fellowship, during which he pursued a run-up project to his capstone, “The Impact of Docosahexaenoic Acid and the Total Western Diet on the Gut Microbiota.”

“The Peak Summer Research Fellowship not only helped me with my research, but also helped me develop my science communication skills,” he says.

Hayden secured another off-campus opportunity to hone his research skills with the AmGen Scholars program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

“In this 10-week program, I investigated intrinsic circadian rhythms in gut motility,” he says. “I attended a wide breadth of research seminars, talked with students from around the country who were at similar points in their academic careers. This program broadened my horizons about how I can make a difference as a biomedical scientist.”

Hayden presented his research, for which he earned the Kinkead Award, in multiple venues.

Coincidentally, Hayden took an English class, the History of Writing, with Kinkead — a refreshing shift of gears from intensive science research — in spring 2021.

“I remember it fondly as one of my first in-person classes at Utah State,” he says. “Dr. Kinkead and her class reminded me of how much I love learning.”

Another class that ignited the undergrad’s passion for knowledge was a biochemistry laboratory class taught by Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry faculty members Sean Johnson, Ryan Jackson and Nick Dickenson.

“I got to purify and characterize a protein in one semester,” Hayden says. “The course was one of the most challenging I ever took, but also the most rewarding.”

Outside of the class and lab, Hayden, who received the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry’s Harris O. and Eleanor Y. Van Orden Award in Biochemistry, devoted time to STEM outreach.

“Outreach matters a lot to me because it inspired me, as a young teenager, to pursue a career in science,” Hayden says. “At Boy Scout meetings, I met older high school chemistry students who explained such phenomena as rust, fermentation and galvanization. Chemistry seemed like magic to me, and through that exposure at a young age, I was shown how exciting science can be.”

Jump-starting USU’s oSTEM chapter was challenging following the pandemic, says Hayden, who stepped up as president for the group as students returned to in-person activities. The chapter provided innovative STEM learning activities at the College of Science’s Science Unwrapped public outreach gatherings, and also provided a space aimed at helping students feel accepted at Utah State.

“I sought to create a space for students to gather and belong, as I learned during the COVID pandemic how important gatherings are for people’s well-being,” he says. “I especially hoped to gather LGBTQ scientists and engineers.”

Two spring 2024 events Hayden says he was proud for oSTEM to collaborate on were the Summer Science Job Seminar and Queer Prom.

“We teamed with USU’s Women in Science club and Miss USU 2023 Regan Tracy on the Summer Science Job Seminar, which was aimed at helping each other build our careers,” he says. “For Queer Prom, we worked with USU’s Queer Student Alliance and the Queer Christiana Initiative to create a festive gathering to celebrate the end of the semester. Through both of these events we reached and benefited many students with encouragement and camaraderie.”

Hayden also carries fond memories of fun with friends during moments of downtime from busy academic assignments.

“A friend and I agreed to dress as popstars — I was Elton John; she was Stevie Nicks — for The Howl,” he says. “We loved dancing to the music of the Jackson 5, ABBA and Sylvester at the Hub’s silent disco. After that day, I always thought of the silent disco, when I passed the Hub.”

He and friends also enjoyed spontaneous fun when they happened upon a rope swing by the canal near 800 East and 1000 North in Logan (bringing flashlights for subsequent visits), as well as country swing dancing at Sage Hall.

“Those were great times with friends, but one of my favorite things to do after a long day of studying was to bake cookies, cook a stir fry or make a salad to reward by body and mind for all of the hard work they did during the day,” he says.

Hayden’s days are currently filled with lab and field work in the Salt Lake City area, as he studies how mosquitoes have developed insecticide resistance.

“We hypothesize that insecticide-resistant mosquitoes are producing more detoxification enzymes to deactivate insecticide,” he says. “So, we developed an experiment to investigate how insecticide exposure affects gene expression in both insecticide-resistant and insecticide-susceptible mosquitoes.”

This fall, as he enters the doctoral program at the U, Hayden hopes to continue research he started at Utah State.

“I found my research niche studying how diet affects the mammalian gut microbiome, and I hope to continue similar work in my Ph.D. program,” Hayden says.

Mary-Ann Muffoletto Public Relations Specialist College of Science 435-797-3517 [email protected]

Comments and questions regarding this article may be directed to the contact person listed on this page.

Next Story in Science & Technology

July 08, 2024     446

Utah State University Researchers Help UDOT Study Vertiports

Earlier this year, the Utah Department of Transportation showcased the state's first demonstration of a vertiport, in collaboration with USU.

July 02, 2024     1536

Christopher R. Smith Named Head of USU Department of Biology

A native of the world — an oil industry brat who lived many places, to be specific — Christopher R. "Chris" Smith looks forward to, once again, living in the mountains.

Trending on Utah State Today

UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS

July 02, 2024     29423

USU Makes Significant Changes in Football Program

June 18, 2024     3688

President Cantwell: Embracing a New Chapter in Our University's History

BUSINESS & SOCIETY

June 20, 2024     3259

Soda Swap: Utah State's Logan Campus Switching From Pepsi to Coke

TEACHING & LEARNING

June 18, 2024     3227

New USU Center Brings Digital Accessibility Within Reach

• Open access
• Published: 06 July 2024

Strengthening a culture of research dissemination: A narrative report of research day at King Faisal Hospital Rwanda, a tertiary-level teaching hospital in Rwanda

• Kara L. Neil 1 ,
• Richard Nduwayezu 1 ,
• Belise S. Uwurukundo 1 ,
• Damas Dukundane 1 ,
• Ruth Mbabazi 1 &
• Gaston Nyirigira 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  732 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

194 Accesses

Metrics details

There are significant gaps in research output and authorship in low- and middle-income countries. Research dissemination events have the potential to help bridge this gap through knowledge transfer, institutional collaboration, and stakeholder engagement. These events may also have an impact on both clinical service delivery and policy development. King Faisal Hospital Rwanda (KFH) is a tertiary-level teaching hospital located in Kigali, Rwanda. To strengthen its research dissemination, KFH conducted an inaugural Research Day (RD) to disseminate its research activities, recognize staff and student researchers at KFH, define a research agenda for the hospital, and promote a culture of research both at KFH and in Rwanda.

RD was coordinated by an interdisciplinary committee of clinical and non-clinical staff at KFH. Researchers were encouraged to disseminate their research across all disciplines. Abstracts were blind reviewed using a weighted rubric and ranked by overall score. Top researchers were also awarded and recognized for their work, and equity and inclusion was at the forefront of RD programming.

RD had over 100 attendees from KFH and other public, private, and academic institutions. Forty-seven abstracts were submitted from the call for abstracts, with the highest proportion studying cancer (17.02%) and sexual and reproductive health (10.64%). Thirty-seven researchers submitted abstracts, and most of the principal investigators were medical doctors (35.14%), allied health professionals (27.03%), and nurses and midwives (16.22%). Furthermore, 30% of principal investigators were female, with the highest proportion of them being nurses and midwives (36.36%).

RD is an effective way to disseminate research in a hospital setting. RD has the potential to strengthen the institution’s research agenda, engage the community in ongoing projects, and provide content-area support to researchers. Equity and inclusion should be at the forefront of research dissemination, including gender equity, authorship representation, and the inclusion of interdisciplinary health professionals. Stakeholder engagement can also be utilized to strengthen institutional research collaboration for greater impact.

Peer Review reports

Significant gaps in research output and author representation exist based on geographic region, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For example, one study conducted by The Lancet Global Health found that while 92% of articles target interventions in LMICs, only 35% of authors are actually from or work in those LMICs [ 1 ]. The Initiative to Strengthen Health Research Capacity in Africa identified nine key requirements for strengthening health research on the continent, including institutional support, providing research funding, promoting networks and research dissemination, and providing tools for conducting research [ 2 ]. In line with this, research dissemination events can be utilized to strengthen the research culture, institutional collaboration and knowledge transfer, and to engage stakeholders. Alongside knowledge transfer, these events can also impact both clinical service delivery and policy development [ 3 ]. This is further corroborated by an article on establishing a clinical research network in Rwanda, highlighting the importance of strengthening research partnerships and dissemination opportunities to mitigate the disease burden in Rwanda and the region [ 4 ].

King Faisal Hospital Rwanda (KFH) is a tertiary-level teaching hospital in Kigali, Rwanda. As a teaching hospital, KFH hosts hundreds of health professional students, including medical students, residents, fellows, allied health professionals, and nurses. Furthermore, KFH hosts some of Rwanda’s most highly specialized medical services and their respective subspecialty fellow trainees, including a catheterization laboratory, cardiothoracic surgery, and renal transplant surgery. While KFH previously had a focal person for education and research activities, there was no full-time team in place to manage this. Therefore, to mitigate this, KFH established a Division of Education, Training, and Research in 2021 to oversee the ongoing teaching and learning activities, including research capacity building and output. KFH also has its own Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review and approve research projects conducted at the hospital, and to monitor the overall uptake in research activity. Alongside the highly specialized services and training hosted at KFH, the hospital is putting significant effort into strengthening its research capacity and culture to ensure that evidence-based practice is at the forefront of strengthening these clinical services.

The trend of research activity at KFH is also increasing, and Fig.  1 outlines the trend of KFH IRB submissions from 2009 to 2023. From 2009 to 2020, the trend in research activity was inconsistent and without a significant increase in activity. However, since 2020, there has been a significant upward trend in research activity. This is most likely attributed to the emphasis placed on evidence-based research and practice by the hospital’s leadership over the past several years. However, the numbers are still low, and further interventions are needed to improve this activity.

Trend of KFH IRB Submissions

Research institutions and teaching hospitals are mandated to provide clinical serives, train health professionals, and conduct research. However, researchers in these institutions may not have institutionalized means of sharing their research findings with the relevant departments and leadership upon completing their research. This can result in a lack of known or implemented findings in the institutions where the research was conducted. This can also lead to the duplication of efforts, especially when research findings have not been locally disseminated or published. In response to this, having dedicated dissemination events will not only support clinical researchers to share their findings, but will also support institutions in conducting more meaningful research in relation to the institutional or national priorities, and building off of previously conducted studies.

The aim of this narrative report is to document the development and implementation of KFH’s inaugural Research Day (RD), which aimed to disseminate its research activities, recognize staff and student researchers at KFH, define a research agenda for the hospital, and promote a culture of research at KFH and more broadly in Rwanda. Furthermore, based on the output of RD, this report proposes recommendations to further strengthen research capacity and culture at KFH or through similar RD events going forward.

RD was coordinated by an interdisciplinary clinical and non-clinical committee at KFH. Researchers were encouraged to submit and disseminate their research across all disciplines at KFH. The committee also considered ways to award and recognize researchers for their work, and ensure that the program and other logistics promoted equity and inclusion. Additionally, the committee oversaw the call for abstracts, program and participant inclusion, and the selection and awards process.

Call for abstracts

The Directorate of Research disseminated a call for abstracts for researchers to submit their projects for poster and oral presentations. Eligible researchers included those who either work or study at KFH, or who conducted research at KFH. To encourage researchers at all stages of their study to participate, eligible abstracts included already published studies and those still in progress.

Program and participant inclusion

To promote the inclusion of KFH staff and students in the event, the organizing committee considered the best venue for RD. As a result, RD was hosted in the KFH inpatient reception area instead of being hosted offsite, with one area for the poster display and another for the main event program. This allowed KFH staff and students to come view the poster display during their working hours without it conflicting with their regular clinical schedules. This also aimed to increase staff awareness towards the ongoing research activities at the hospital and encourage them to also get involved in research going forward.

The program for the day had several components. It commenced with a poster display, where representatives from each research team were stationed with their respective posters to answer questions and provide more information on their studies. The main program included opening remarks from the KFH Chair of the Board of Directors, a keynote speech on the importance of research dissemination from Head of Health Workforce Development at the Ministry of Health, and an overview of the state of research at KFH. The main program concluded with oral presentations and the award ceremony.

Selection and awards

Before the event, an interdisciplinary selection committee composed of external reviewers blind-reviewed each abstract. Each abstract was evaluated using a weighted rubric, which was developed based on existing literature and the main components of an abstract. Specifically, the rubric considered 7 criteria, including clarity and organization; relevance and significance of the study; originality and innovation; methods and approach; results and findings; conclusions and implications; and grammar and writing. Within these criteria, the rubric also evaluated the overall quality of the study, adherence with ethical and legal requirements, and the validity of the findings against the methods and study design. The blind review was conducted individually by external reviewers to avoid potential biases, and reviewers were assigned to abstracts based on their expertise and the topics of the abstracts. The individual scores were then compiled, with an average taken for each abstract. The abstracts were then ranked from the highest to the lowest scores. The selection committee used these results to recommend oral and poster presenters, which included 40 posters and 7 oral presentations. In general, all abstracts meeting the minimum quality criteria were selected for poster displays. This was done to encourage researchers to disseminate their progress and increase the visibility of their work more inclusively. However, only completed studies were eligible for oral presentations.

During the event, three additional awards committees with external reviewers were established to evaluate the posters and oral presentations for one of three awards: best oral presentation, best poster presentation, and most impactful study. These committees utilized rubrics that were developed based on the main components of the abstract, along with the overall impact and presentation. The committee members reviewed the projects throughout research day, whereby the results were compiled and presented at the end of RD during the awards ceremony.

Over 100 attendees participated in the main program of RD, and additional participants attended in the poster presentation throughout the day. For the main program, attendees included key stakeholders and senior researchers from Rwanda and the region, including those with the ability to positively influence the research environment and mentor junior researchers. Specifically, participants included KFH leadership, professional councils (Rwanda Medical and Dental Council), government institutions (Ministry of Health and Rwanda Biomedical Centre), health sciences schools (University of Rwanda and University of Global Health Equity), and teaching hospitals (University Teaching Hospital of Kigali, University Teaching Hospital of Butare, and Rwanda Military Hospital), among others.

Abstract submissions

Forty-seven abstracts were submitted from the call for abstracts, as outlined in Table  1 . The highest proportion of abstracts were studying cancer (17.02%), and primarily in colorectal and breast cancer. Sexual and reproductive health was the second most represented content area, making up 10.64% of abstract submissions, followed by anesthesia and pain management (8.51%) and data science/IT (8.51%).

Table  1 Outlines the submitted abstracts by content area.

Researcher profile

Eligible researchers included KFH staff and students, as well as external researchers with projects conducted at KFH. This was decided with the aim to ensure that all disseminated research either featured KFH staff and students, or was research conducted at the hospital. Overall, 37 researchers submitted 47 abstracts. Principal Investigators (PIs) were primarily medical doctors (35.14%), allied health professionals (27.03%), and nurses and midwives (16.22%). Amongst medical doctors, anesthesia and critical care professionals represented the highest proportion of PIs (38.4%), and amongst allied health professionals, imaging services represented the highest proportion (40%). Additionally, 30% of PIs were female, with most of them being nurses or midwives (36.36%). Females comprised at least half of PIs in administration, nursing and midwifery, and data science/IT. Table  2 outlines the PIs who submitted abstracts by department and sex.

Selection process and awards

The selection committee selected seven oral presentations. Table  3 outlines the oral presentations that were selected, along with those awarded for the best oral presentation and most impactful project. Additionally, the best poster presentation was awarded to a midwife staff member who presented on strengthening family-centered maternity care at KFH.

Because this was the first event of its kind at KFH, there were a few challenges in organizing and hosting the event. When the organizing committee started planning, there was a general lack of awareness on the event’s importance. Some staff questioned its benefit and why staff should be released from their clinical activities to attend. Additionally, there were few abstract submissions leading up to the submission deadline. To mitigate these issues, the committee intentionally engaged with the hospital leadership, departments, and individuals to strengthen buy in and participation in the event. This included individual meetings with department leadership to explain RD’s importance. Additionally, the RD committee membership was expanded to ensure better representation across departments and disciplines. Finally, the committee extended its submission deadline and approached researchers individually to encourage them to submit abstracts, regardless of their completion status. Because this was the first RD at KFH, engaging staff individually and at the team level helped build buy in across all levels of the institution, and ultimately increased participation in the event.

RD demonstrated the critical need to further strengthen research dissemination activities at KFH. The long-term aim at KFH is to promote knowledge transfer and translation through research. Research dissemination was highlighted as an initial step towards this to generate engagement and participation in the ongoing activities, and hopefully encourage junior or inactive researchers to start engaging. Specifically, RD highlighted the need to define a research agenda; promote equity and inclusion both in research activity and dissemination events; and ensure multi-institutional stakeholder collaboration in dissemination activities.

Defining a research agenda

Common research areas were revealed through the abstract submissions, including in internal medicine (45%), obstetrics and gynecology (14%), and pediatrics (12%). However, it also revealed the need to streamline dissemination efforts through a defined hospital research agenda. This will contribute to knowledge translation in those specialties in the future, as well as more initiatives to strengthen research in those specialties. The research agenda itself may be driven by the research interests generated by the departments and researchers seen in RD. These departmental interests can then be narrowed down to specific specialties. For example, among those conducted in internal medicine, the research mainly focused on cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. Integrating department or specialty-driven research priorities requires a deeper investigation into why these research areas were more frequently represented.

Additionally, many of the research projects had simple study designs, which may be attributed to limited capacity to conduct more complex projects, likely due to limited financial capacity, skills, or time. Currently, there is no policy that defines time allocation for research as a clinician. To be able to implement this research agenda and strengthen the research culture, there is a need to mobilize financial and non-financial resources that will enable the institution and researchers to conduct impactful and complex research. Ensuring equity and the distribution of research support and resources across services and departments alongside this defined research agenda is critical.

Promoting equity and inclusion

Healthcare professionals exhibit a wide range of characteristics, including diverse social backgrounds, gender, experiences, and disability statuses [ 5 ]. As a result, healthcare institutions should adopt an inclusive research agenda that fosters cognitive diversity and encourages the sharing of innovative ideas. Such an approach ensures the development of a culturally competent workforce, ultimately reducing research biases [ 6 ]. Additionally, a culturally competent environment enhances individual motivation, leading to improved team performance [ 7 ]. This is because all healthcare providers, irrespective of their roles, contribute unique ideas and problem-solving techniques, often referred to as collective intelligence, which is essential in achieving comprehensive and unbiased research outcomes [ 8 ]. Having a diverse healthcare workforce engaged in research endeavors ensures the minimization of knowledge gaps. The multidisciplinary approach in healthcare has consistently been reflected in the highest quality of care, and it is therefore expected that it will similarly translate into the highest quality of research.

Additionally, gender equity in authorship aims to ensure equal opportunities for individuals of all genders to contribute to academic publications, which is a critical factor in professional success [ 9 , 10 ]. As highlighted at KFH’s RD, individuals of all genders were welcomed and provided equal submission opportunities. This is evident in our RD researcher profile, where female PIs were 50% of administrators and 67% of nurses and midwives. Having 70% of PIs being male overall was likely influenced by the existing gender gap in medical doctors, further emphasizing the need to empower and engage women in medicine and in academic publications. Globally, the progress in women’s empowerment is reflected in the increasing number of women pursuing careers in health and academia [ 11 ]. Statistics show a significant rise in female authors in major journals, from 6% to 10% in the 1970s to 54% and 46% for first and last authorship in 2019 [ 12 ]. This progress serves as motivation for KFH, where there were gaps in female participation, highlighting the need for more intentional efforts to promote equity and inclusion in research activity and dissemination platforms.

Stakeholder collaboration and engagement

RD revealed the importance of stakeholder collaboration to strengthen research dissemination and an overall research culture in health science institutions. As a lesson learned through RD, there is a need to streamline the way research is conducted and engage different stakeholders on this journey. To enhance and impact clinical outcomes, there is a need to strengthen research collaboration between academic institutions and hospitals. Evidence-based clinical decisions will ultimately result in higher quality healthcare by informing the development of policies and strategies. As these collective research endeavors advance, it is crucial to have a comprehensive health research policy alongside this engagement. This policy should not only serve as a guiding framework for health research within its institutions, but also ensure that the research addresses the specific needs of its communities. Students and researchers affiliated with academic institutions can contribute to fulfilling the mission of hospitals when a well-defined research agenda is in place and vice versa, and this policy will serve as the guiding principle for its implementation.

While other institutions were invited to the KFH RD, there is still a need for more intentional efforts towards institutional research collaboration and dissemination efforts. Specific ways that this can be achieved are through joint research dissemination opportunities, as well as the integration of professional societies in Rwanda, to ensure that institutions and health professions are equitably represented in these activities. Furthermore, utilizing technology can also allow for more collaboration and allow dissemination activities to be more accessible to a wider audience outside of the hospital.

Implications for policy and practice

RD also highlighted implications for policy and practice at KFH and teaching hospitals in general. In addition to the need to define an institutional research agenda, the gaps in authorship and topic area representation across all hospital specialties suggests the need to integrate research into staff performance appraisal and promotion systems to institutionally motivate staff to participate. In doing so, the representation of all staff and respective disciplines would become more representative of the hospital itself. Furthermore, although over 100 internal and external attendees participated, and the event was hosted in the hospital for free to promote engagement, the participant number still only reflects a small proportion of the hospital, which has over 800 staff. This suggests that KFH could implement other policies or practices to motivate or require staff to participate in research-related activities. Finally, informal feedback from RD participants suggested that RD is an important step towards knowledge translation, but that additional efforts are needed alongside this event, especially towards building staff research capacity, providing resources to conduct research, and supporting those researchers with in-progress projects towards completion. Going forward, KFH will implement these recommendations towards its practices and evaluate their impact.

RD provides an important platform for teaching hospitals to strengthen their research dissemination and overall research culture. RD is also an opportunity to implement the hospital’s research agenda and drive forward evidence-based practice in identified research areas. In LMICs, where there is already a significant gap in research output and authorship representation, this provides an opportunity for researchers to present and get feedback on their progress, and to motivate them to further engage in research activities. To sustain momentum and address the challenges encountered, teaching hospitals should consider RD as just one component of a broader research dissemination plan, with the wider aim of knowledge translation. By ensuring that RD is not hosted in isolation of other initiatives, this also strengthens the institutional, team-level, and individual buy in needed to strengthen RD engagement. Furthermore, when designing RD, emphasis should be given to promoting equity and inclusion in authorship, including gender, discipline, and professional experience levels. Stakeholder engagement should also be considered to strengthen institutional research collaboration for greater impact, as collaboration with other institutions can strengthen institutional research collaboration, maximizing the impact of research findings and fostering a culture of collaboration and knowledge dissemination. Going forward, KFH will continue to strengthen its research culture by leveraging RD as an initial step towards knowledge translation and implementing a defined research agenda geared towards strengthening clinical service delivery and patient outcomes.

Data availability

The data analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Institutional Review Board

King Faisal Hospital Rwanda

Low- and middle-income country

Principal Investigator

Research Day

Bowsher G, Papamichail A, El Achi N, Ekzayez A, Roberts B, Sullivan R, et al. A narrative review of health research capacity strengthening in low and middle-income countries: lessons for conflict-affected areas. Globalization Health. 2019;15(1):23.

Article   Google Scholar  

Whitworth JAGD, Kokwaro GP, Kinyanjui SP, Snewin VAP, Tanner MP, Walport MF, et al. Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. Lancet (British Edition). 2008;372(9649):1590–3.

Google Scholar  

Mc Sween-Cadieux E, Dagenais C, Somé P-A, Ridde V. Research dissemination workshops: observations and implications based on an experience in Burkina Faso. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(1):43.

Musabyiman JP, Musanabaganwa C, Dushimiyimana V, Namabajimana JP, Karame P, Nshimiyimana L, et al. The Rwanda Clinical Research Network: a model for mixed south-south and north-south collaborations for clinical research capacity development. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(Suppl 3):A11–2.

Stanford FC. The importance of diversity and inclusion in the Healthcare workforce. J Natl Med Assoc. 2020;112(3):247–9.

Kayingo G, Bradley-Guidry C, Burwell N, Suzuki S, Dorough R, Bester V. Assessing and benchmarking equity, diversity, and inclusion in healthcare professions. JAAPA. 2022;35(11).

Harrison D, Klein K. What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32.

Aggarwal I, Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Malone TW. The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Front Psychol. 2019;10.

Chatterjee P, Werner RM. Gender disparity in citations in high-impact Journal Articles. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2114509–e.

West JD, Jacquet J, King MM, Correll SJ, Bergstrom CT. The role of gender in Scholarly Authorship. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e66212.

Rexrode KM. The gender gap in first authorship of research papers. BMJ. 2016;352:i1130.

Madden C, O’Malley R, O’Connor P, O’Dowd E, Byrne D, Lydon S. Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: a bibliometric review. Med Educ. 2021;55(6):678–88.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the leadership of King Faisal Hospital Rwanda for their significant support towards strengthening the Directorate of Research and the overall research culture at the hospital.

This paper received no funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

King Faisal Hospital Rwanda, P.O Box 2534, Kigali, Rwanda

Kara L. Neil, Richard Nduwayezu, Belise S. Uwurukundo, Damas Dukundane, Ruth Mbabazi & Gaston Nyirigira

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KN and GN wrote the background, methods, and findings. DD, BU, RN, and RM wrote the discussion and conclusion sections. All authors reviewed and edited the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kara L. Neil .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ information

Additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Neil, K.L., Nduwayezu, R., Uwurukundo, B.S. et al. Strengthening a culture of research dissemination: A narrative report of research day at King Faisal Hospital Rwanda, a tertiary-level teaching hospital in Rwanda. BMC Med Educ 24 , 732 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05736-0

Download citation

Received : 11 November 2023

Accepted : 02 July 2024

Published : 06 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05736-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research dissemination
• Teaching hospital

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Call or Text the Maternal Mental Health Hotline

Parents: don’t struggle alone

The National Maternal Mental Health Hotline provides free, confidential mental health support. Pregnant people, moms, and new parents can call or text any time, every day.

Start a call: 1-833-TLC-MAMA (1-833-852-6262)

Text now: 1-833-TLC-MAMA (1-833-852-6262)

Use TTY: Use your preferred relay service or dial 711 , then 1-833-852-6262 .

Learn more about the Hotline

• Programs & Impact
• Focus Areas
• Maternal and Child Health Workforce Development
• Workforce Development Projects

Baylor College of Medicine - Texas Medical Center Leadership Education in Adolescent Health (BCM-TMC LEAH)

Project profile.

Albert Hergenroeder, MD Phone: 832-822-3658 Email: [email protected]

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) comprise 20.5% of the U.S. population yet account for disproportionate rates of mortality and morbidity from accidents, homicide, suicide, and other preventable conditions, especially those related to mental health and among historically underserved AYA. The threats to health are even greater for AYA with special health care needs of which there are an estimated 919,876 living in Region 6 where this LEAH program would reside. Region 6, including Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas and Louisiana, is in desperate need of bolstered public health capacity and leaders in AYA health who have completed interdisciplinary training. The region serves an ethnically, racially, culturally, geographically, and economically complex AYA population.

Goals and objectives:

Goals of the BCM-TMC LEAH program are to:

• Prepare diverse leaders in AYA health through didactic, experiential, and research-based interdisciplinary education and training in core health disciplines of medicine, nursing, nutrition, psychology, social work, and public health;
• Expand diversity, equity, and inclusion related to race, ethnicity, geography, and special populations within all training program components, including trainee/faculty recruitment/retention, staffing plan, curricula, clinical and experiential activities, and research foci to address health disparities and increase health equity for AYA;
• Develop curricula and training activities, and launch research to produce evidence-based products and practices in primary care, AYA specialty service, and public health;
• Improve access to behavioral, emotional, mental, developmental, and psychosocial health services, well-being and support for AYA; and 5) Develop, expand, and disseminate population-based strategies and effective practices through collaboration and coordination of telehealth, tele-education/distance learning, technical assistance (TA), and continuing education (CE).

Methodology:

Using a variety of interdisciplinary learning experiences, the BCM-TMC LEAH Training Program will be the catalyst to bring together four nationally ranked institutions located within the Texas Medical Center to prepare graduates in medicine, nursing, nutrition, psychology, and social work, plus public health to assume leadership roles in the development, improvement, and integration of AYA systems of care. Training settings will include Title V organizations and hospital- and community-based programs that are AYA-serving and based on the principles of positive youth development, transition to adulthood, networks of public-private partnerships, and community linkages to bolster public health, interdisciplinary practice, and AYA-centered, comprehensive, and coordinated care. TA, CE, and consultation will be provided to train the current work force throughout Region 6, including those in underserved areas.

COORDINATION:

BCM-TMC LEAH has established partnerships in primary care, public health, and AYA systems of care, including Title V, at the national, regional, state, and local levels and will coordinate with these partners to implement the LEAH program.

Evaluation:

Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-oriented, inclusive, and equitable (SMARTIE) objectives developed for each goal will be evaluated annually. Data elements will be collected to complete the MCH Administrative Forms and Performance Measures. Strategies to measure program impact, including trainee outcomes at 2-, 5-, and 10-years post-completion of LEAH Training, will be implemented.

‘Understanding Zero Budget Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh’ emerges as a finalist in the 2024 University of Reading Research Awards for Interdisciplinary Research

We are delighted to announce that a Global Development Division research project, Understanding Zero Budget Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh, has emerged as a finalist in the interdisciplinary research category of the prestigious 2024 University of Reading Research Awards . The UoR Research Awards celebrate excellent research taking place across the university that addresses real-world problems using interdisciplinary approaches, is built on partnership and collaboration, and engages a wide range of audiences. This year’s awards included a new interdisciplinary research category to recognise individuals or teams who undertake original and innovative interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research and received a number of high-quality entries on a broad range of topics from across the university. We are excited to see the Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh, India, project emerge as a finalist in this competitive research award.

The Natural Farming project is a collaborative study between the University of Reading and local partners, led by Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) in Andhra Pradesh, India. Taking an innovative interdisciplinary approach that combines soil and social sciences, this study has revealed a new understanding about the effectiveness of zero-budget natural farming. High levels of farmer debt and the phenomenon of farmer suicides in India have made finding low-cost agricultural strategies fundamental to rural wellbeing and development. This is combined with increasing environmental changes, particularly soil degradation, which undermines effective agricultural production. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroots agrarian movement in Andhra Pradesh, India. It is a low-cost, locally sourced natural farming method that promotes chemical-free farming to bolster smallholder farmers’ resilience. By providing a holistic approach to support the case for its expansion across Andhra Pradesh in India, both the land and the farmers who work it will benefit.

An interdisciplinary team from the University of Reading, led by soil scientist Dr. Sarah Duddigan and social scientist Dr. Grady Walker, has been developing an evidence base to understand the effectiveness of the ZBNF approach. Through a combination of controlled field experiments and participatory photography, their research considered the motivations behind the adoption of ZBNF. It engaged with over 150 smallholder farmers and young research fellows who actively participated in data collection and analysis, as well as other local stakeholders such as Women’s Self-Help Groups.

The soil science investigations demonstrated how ZBNF enhances soil moisture retention and improves yield while reducing expenditure. In parallel, the participatory photography revealed that farmers value ZBNF not just for potential yield gains but also for providing agricultural independence, preserving cultural legacy, and rejecting industrialised farming methods. The participatory approach directly benefited community participants by sharing new knowledge about sustainable agriculture practices. The overall research project supported capacity building through training between the Reading team and over 100 Indian researchers and farmers.

Bringing the two disciplines together generated insights on the multifaceted socio-economic and environmental benefits. These insights could not have been achieved by either discipline alone. The project’s holistic findings have supported decision-makers who are intending to upscale natural farming to 6 million farmers in Andhra Pradesh, marking a significant step towards sustainable agricultural practices and rural development.

“This is an opportunity to show my cluster farmers the difference between ZBNF, organic, and conventional treatments, which will help them implement the better one for better yields and good soil health.”

Natural Farming Fellow, RySS

“An innovative interdisciplinary research project bringing together soil science and social science to work with a well-defined stakeholder community that has a very promising impact.”

Judges’ comment

Congratulations to the team!

University of Reading cookie policy

We use cookies on reading.ac.uk to improve your experience. You can find out more about our cookie policy . By continuing to use our site you accept these terms, and are happy for us to use cookies to improve your browsing experience.