Abstract
Interdisciplinarity is often framed as crucial for addressing the complex problems of contemporary society and for achieving new levels of innovation. But while science policy and institutions have provided a variety of incentives for stimulating interdisciplinary work throughout Europe, there is also growing evidence that some aspects of the academic system do not necessarily reward interdisciplinary work. In this study, we explore how mid-career researchers in an environmental science research center in Sweden relate to and handle the distinct forms of uncertainty that arise from conflicting institutional and policy impulses. Our material suggests that interdisciplinary academics are often confronted with and at times themselves operate with a surprisingly dichotomous, value-laden view of their research practice. Disciplinarity is primarily associated with the ideals of scientific rigor, while interdisciplinarity becomes conflated with application-oriented work and a lack of ‘theory.’ We also draw attention to the underlying practical dynamics that reproduce this tension and entangle it with the very process of academic socialization. Specifically, we analyze the ambivalent consequences of the various work-arounds that researchers rely on to carve out opportunities for ongoing interdisciplinary research within heterogeneous funding landscapes. These tactics turn out to be undermined by the overriding normative power of formal career incentives at universities, which continue to emphasize the ideals of the individual high-performing academic who publishes in disciplinary journals and attracts the most selective grants. Under such circumstances, the work-arounds themselves become an insidious mechanism that allows researchers to stay in academia but systematically marginalizes their voices and epistemic ambitions in the process.
Highlights
Over the last two decades, fostering interdisciplinarity in research and innovation has been a central goal of European science policy
For example, the national context in which the case study we present in this paper is set, regularly emphasizes the value of interdisciplinarity for science and society, which is, for example, expressed in its diversified landscape of funding bodies that often pursue specific ‘sectoral’ agendas to address pressing societal and ecological problems (Jacob 2015; Håkansta & Jacob 2016)
The material for this article was collected at an interdisciplinary research center that is specialized in research on contemporary environmental challenges
Summary
Over the last two decades, fostering interdisciplinarity in research and innovation has been a central goal of European science policy. According to Strathern, a dominant assumption behind funding programs for interdisciplinary work in the UK and other European countries is that they will effectuate a broadening of disciplinary quality standards and subject research to alternative forms of accountability (e.g., relevance to industrial or other societal stakeholders) We find this third strand of literature enriching because it makes visible that the specific nature and the intensity of the challenges researchers often encounter when conducting interdisciplinary work – with regard to career development as the empirical studies we discussed before show – can be a result of interactions between different contextual factors, such as novel and strategic funding incentives and the specific academic landscapes in which they unfold. With this paper we contribute to filling this gap by exploring questions such as through which strategies do researchers try to reconcile funding opportunities for interdisciplinary, ‘societally relevant’ work, on the one hand, and the need to accommodate funding and publication practices that are often geared towards disciplinary research, on the other? Further, how do their strategies for managing uncertainties regarding careers, funding, and publication performance affect and shape their ability to tackle the epistemic and practical uncertainties involved in interdisciplinary research?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.