A new report from the British Academy explores the ¡°barriers to interdisciplinary research¡± at all career stages and how they can be overcome.

Launched on 12 July, points to ¡°a broad and deep support for IDR [inter-disciplinary research]¡± within universities, both for ¡°its essential role in addressing complex problems and research questions posed by global social challenges¡± and for ¡°the increased rigour it can bring to one¡¯s understanding of one¡¯s own discipline¡±.

Yet it also notes that many who were ¡°asked what advice [they] would provide an early-career researcher wanting to start out on an IDR career or undertake an IDR project¡± stated that ¡°they would advise against such a move ¨C at least until the researcher was well established with a permanent job¡±.

The report goes on to survey a number of ¡°institutionalised disincentives to interdisciplinarity¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Those pursuing PhDs may ¡°incur career risks¡± by incorporating an interdisciplinary approach into their theses, if that means that they fail to ¡°develop the requisite discipline base and methodological expertise for subsequent career progression. As one researcher put it during an institutional visit: they may be perceived to be ¡®discipline-less¡¯ in a job market largely organised on a discipline basis.¡±

Early career researchers (ECRs) can find that ¡°funding is more likely to be secured for disciplinary research than IDR¡±. Recruiting panels will often ¡°prefer someone with experience in core and foundational subjects¡±. And once they have secured a post, ¡°juggling a full teaching load with the demands of publishing may encourage ECRs to stay within their discipline rather than investing in developing IDR¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Even mid-career academics, argues Crossing Paths, may see it as ¡°relatively high risk¡± to ¡°pursu[e] innovative IDR¡±, compared with ¡°leading-edge work in an established field in one¡¯s existing academic social network¡±, especially given a perception that ¡°interdisciplinary proposals [for research funding] have lower success rates¡±.

Furthermore, since departments gain prestige and power through their ¡°ability to attract substantial research funding?(grants and contracts plus the quality-related funding allocation following the REF evaluation) and doctoral students¡±, it can often be ¡°rational for [them] to perpetuate discipline-focused research¡±.

Having set out some of the difficulties that scholars face in interdisciplinary research, the British Academy report also makes a number of proposals about how to overcome them.

The executive summary encourages institutions ¡°clearly [to] convey support for IDR to allow researchers to explore new projects outside their academic home with confidence that this work will be assessed and valued appropriately¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Universities should address ¡°the challenge of reconciling the disciplinary-based structures for organising research and teaching activities and associated resources, and the cross-cutting structures needed to support IDR and provide interdisciplinary teaching¡±.

And they should ¡°establish strategies for managing income across disciplinary and IDR structures and units¡±. Given that IDR generally ¡°takes extra time and groundwork¡±, one important aspect of this is protecting ¡°seedcorn funding for bottom-up IDR projects¡±.

Equally important was the role of the government, which ¡°should publish an assessment of the capability of each department to absorb advice and evidence from the science and research community at disciplinary and interdisciplinary levels¡±.

matthew.reisz@tesglobal.com