Satisfying two masters

Not a day goes by without seeing a request for proposals from a federal science agency seeking “interdisciplinary efforts to address scientific challenges leading to a new and truly transformative approach.”

Arguably, the most dynamic research at disciplinary frontiers and in novel terrains is interdisciplinary. But you have to defy gravity to achieve it. Because every day, biologists just talk to biologists, economists talk to economists, and psychologists to psychologists.

Even in notably successful interdisciplinary research programs, where there is a concerted effort to integrate of knowledge and modes of thinking, the approval of peers sways assessment. Researchers often are forced to evaluate the degree to which their work is reasonably consistent with antecedent disciplinary knowledge.

This is the conclusion of a paper entitled “Assessing Interdisciplinary Work at the Frontier” by Veronica Boix Mansilla and Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. In their study, they looked at the way in which the quality of interdisciplinary work is determined at exemplary interdisciplinary institutes and programs around the nation.

At the end of the day, success of faculty is tied to disciplinary recognition. Sure, there is a tremendous sense of freedom associated to breaking disciplinary rules, and trying to transform understanding.

But interdisciplinary work takes a lot of effort. A lot of compromises and negotiations are in order. Members of interdisciplinary research programs have to spend time to recognize the relevance of others' findings to their own scholarship.

The authors conclude that interdisciplinary work gains its strength from its keen awareness of the provisional status of its findings. When you are at the cutting edge of anything, by definition you're taking risks that most do not take.