Academics and their bosses agree that interdisciplinarity is important, and have similar views about the obstacles that hinder it. But they have completely different ideas about how to overcome those obstacles, according to a Monash University study.
Research involving almost 450 Monash executives and researchers found that “tangible” factors were the main barriers to multidisciplinary research. Respondents highlighted the extra effort involved and the difficulty of securing funding or publishing the results in prestigious journals.
The 430 surveyed academics overwhelmingly supported tangible incentives to overcome these deterrents. University-financed internal grant funding was the most popular option, with 89 per cent of respondents saying it would make them more inclined to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries.
Other reward-based mechanisms, such as funding for travel or PhD students, were also popular. Respondents also favoured incentives like teaching relief for interdisciplinary researchers, or performance guidelines “that specifically take interdisciplinary research into account”.
But they had little faith in institutional approaches such as central coordination of interdisciplinary collaboration, with almost half of respondents saying this would not motivate cross-disciplinary collaboration at all. Professional development programmes to develop interdisciplinary research skills were almost as unpopular.
Interviews with 14 Monash leaders – including seven deans, a deputy vice-chancellor, the provost and the then vice-chancellor – uncovered opposing views. Most overlooked internal funding as a potential remedy, with the rest opposing the idea. “I don’t think we should just throw money at it,” one said.
University leaders were also “notably antagonistic” to any suggestion that interdisciplinary research should be factored into the “workload points” systems governing performance expectations. “No incentives, no rewards, no workload,” one said. “Forget all of that. That is not how you get the best out of your researchers.”
Another criticised researchers’ inclination to “pursue their thing” and expect payment “for doing what they want to do”. The executives cited “cultural change” as the best method for encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration.
“[We must] constantly remind people that we’re part of a big ecosystem of research,” one said. “Many people…naturally think in that joined up, interdisciplinary way,” said another. “But they are going to come across people who have got no interest in it at all.”
Report author Joshua Newman said the results highlighted a fundamental disconnect in efforts to foster collaboration.
“Ultimately, if interdisciplinary collaboration is to be achieved, the people who do the research work and the people who control the research-related resources will have to agree on what the obstacles are and how to overcome them,” wrote Dr Johnson, an associate professor in politics and international relations at Monash’s School of Social Sciences.
He said his findings pointed to a “paradox of interdisciplinarity” where interdisciplinary research was “given much lip service” but little practical support.
Dr Johnson said the issue was not limited to Monash or, indeed, Australia. “Similar outcomes” had been documented in the US, UK, Italy, Latin America and elsewhere.
The findings also aligned with the notion of the “neoliberal university” where relationships between workers and managers had become highly transactional. “In such a corporatised institutional environment, it would not be surprising that workers would ask for greater material benefits and that managers – seeking to cut costs – might be reluctant to offer these benefits.”
