1 History of interdisciplinary research
1.1 The emergence and evolution of interdisciplinary research
Understanding the distinctions among multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary concepts is essential for clarifying the evolution of knowledge integration. Multidisciplinary approaches bring together multiple disciplines to address a common problem while maintaining distinct perspectives, essentially relating different disciplines in parallel. However, Interdisciplinary methods integrate knowledge from several disciplines to create a cohesive approach to complex issues. Transdisciplinary approaches transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries, forming a unified intellectual framework that may result in new fields (Aboelela, 2007; Jensenius, 2012). Interdisciplinary research, the most commonly used concept, integrates two or more disciplines to solve problems that transcend single-field boundaries (National Academy of Sciences, 2015). The development of academic disciplines can be categorized into three stages: pre-disciplinary, disciplinary, and post-disciplinary. The pre-disciplinary stage refers to a period without established academic discipline systems. The disciplinary stage is marked by the formation of formal discipline systems, whereas the post-disciplinary stage is characterized by the rise of interdisciplinary research, transforming traditional academic disciplines (Gentzler, 2014).
The concepts of discipline and interdisciplinary research are relatively modern within the knowledge domain (Sugimoto & Weingart, 2015). Although ancient Greek philosophers and medieval universities recognized various subjects, the modern concept of a discipline—characterized by consensus on theories, methodologies, research themes, perspectives, and practices—only solidified in the 19th century. Aristotle’s comprehensive works and Comte’s social theory, predates this formalization by integrating insights from multiple fields (Eykens, 2023; Szostak, 2007).
The contemporary structure of disciplines emerged in the 19th century, formalizing knowledge into distinct, specialized areas through universities, degree programs, professional associations, funding bodies, journals, and conferences (Darian-Smith & McCarty, 2017). The establishment of professional associations, such as the American Chemical Society in 1876 and the American Historical Association in 1884, crystallized knowledge into distinct domains (Klein, 1990; Xu et al., 2018). This specialization facilitated rapid knowledge accumulation but also compartmentalized disciplines, hindering cross-disciplinary dialogue (Weingart, 2010). Interdisciplinary research emerged as a response, fostering disciplinary reorganization and innovation. External factors, notably World War II, also propelled the rise of interdisciplinary research. The war catalyzed the Big Science research paradigm, exemplified by the Manhattan Project, which involved large-scale, interdisciplinary collaboration (Lei et al., 2020). This period also saw significant interdisciplinary projects in social sciences, demonstrating the value of interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing complex societal issues (Li & Xu, 2023).
The efficacy of interdisciplinary research during World War II set the stage for sustained interest and support. Post-war periods witnessed groundbreaking discoveries in natural sciences and the birth of interdisciplinary domains like computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science (Augier, 2018). The 1990s marked the Human Genome Project, a landmark interdisciplinary endeavor. In 2007, the National Institutes of Health funded nine interdisciplinary consortia, signifying the formal acceptance of interdisciplinary research by major agencies (Graff, 2016; Jacobs, 2014). Concurrently, interdisciplinary areas such as area studies, environmental studies, and gender studies rose in humanities and social sciences, driven by societal shifts and civil rights movements (Darian-Smith & McCarty, 2017).
Parallel to these developments, the formal study to interdisciplinary research advanced. The first interdisciplinary conference organized by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1970 and subsequent publications heralded the recognition of interdisciplinary research (Apostol, 1972). In 1976, the Interdisciplinary Science Reviews journal was founded, institutionalizing the field. In the 1990s, Gibbons et al. (1994) theoretically summarized the paradigm of contemporary scientific research as Mode II of knowledge production, arguing that it encompasses five primary characteristics: applied context, interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and organizational diversity, social accountability and reflexivity, and comprehensive multi-dimensional quality control. Among these, interdisciplinarity is deemed the core characteristic of Mode II. A Nature study highlighted the increasing trend in interdisciplinary research publications from 1980 to 2010 across natural and social sciences (Van Noorden, 2015).
1.2 From interdisciplinary research to interdisciplinary education
Interdisciplinary research, which blends insights and methods from various fields, is transforming educational paradigms worldwide. As interdisciplinary research evolve, educational systems must adapt to integrate these diverse perspectives to ensure that learners are prepared to tackle complex issues spanning multiple fields (Hu et al., 2024). Examining how interdisciplinary research transitions to interdisciplinary education is crucial. Educational systems, serving as primary conduits for disseminating knowledge production methods, are inherently shaped by shifts in knowledge production.
The 2022 revisions to the Compulsory Education Curriculum Plan by China’s Ministry of Education underscore the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary thematic learning in primary and secondary education. This plan mandates that interdisciplinary activities should constitute no less than 10% of classroom time, aiming to foster connections between subjects and enhance the practical application of knowledge. This initiative has led to a notable increase in interdisciplinary learning within China’s education sector, evidenced by a surge in related publications on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), one of the largest bibliographic databases covering tens of millions of journal articles, conference papers, master’s and PhD theses, among others. The trend towards teaching and evaluation reform through an interdisciplinary lens has been highlighted as significant within Chinese educational research (Li, 2024). Xia (2024) notes that interdisciplinary research and education in universities tend to mirror the trends and practices in the field of basic education, and the interdisciplinary learning experiences of students during the basic education stage serve as the intellectual cornerstone for their future development and growth. In contrast, international research predominantly focuses on interdisciplinary learning at the undergraduate and graduate levels, with less emphasis on primary and secondary education (Cooper et al., 2001; Ivanitskaya et al., 2002).
At the undergraduate level, the General Education Movement in the United States during the 1930s closely aligned with the principles of interdisciplinary education. This movement sought to counter the disciplinary specialization and curricular fragmentation of the German higher education model, laying the groundwork for integrating interdisciplinary courses into the education systems of leading American universities (Holley, 2009). The Boyer Report further emphasized the necessity of introducing undergraduate students to interdisciplinary fields, aligning educational offerings with both the evolving nature of scientific research and student interests (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998). Similarly, the University of California’s Commission on General Education and Harvard University’s reforms in the 1970s highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary courses, advocating for a curriculum that transcends single disciplines to foster a comprehensive understanding across multiple fields (Liu, 1986; Xie et al., 2021).
At the graduate level, the integration of interdisciplinary research has been significant, notably through the establishment of interdisciplinary degree programs and dedicated funding initiatives. The University of Chicago’s Social Science Division reported that a substantial proportion of its doctoral and master’s degrees awarded in the 1953-1954 academic year were through interdisciplinary programs, highlighting early recognition of the value of interdisciplinary education (Wohl, 1955). More recently, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, initiated in 1998, specifically supports the interdisciplinary training of STEM graduate students, illustrating the commitment to fostering interdisciplinary expertise among the next generation of scholars (Hackett & Rhoten, 2009; Manathunga et al., 2006).
1.3 Development of interdisciplinary research in China
Following the reform and opening-up period, China began to adopt Western interdisciplinary research methodologies, recognizing their importance across both natural and social sciences (Tong, 1979; Zhang, 1980). The China Association for Science and Technology hosted its first interdisciplinary scientific conference from April 17 to April 19, 1985. This event, which included distinguished scientists such as Xuesen Qian, Sanqiang Qian, and Weichang Qian, primarily focused on the natural sciences. It culminated in the publication of “Welcoming the Era of Interdisciplinary Science” in 1986 (Liu & Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, on November 17, 1992, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences held a symposium on interdisciplinary research. Drawing insights from the discipline’s evolution in the United States, this symposium highlighted the critical role of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing complex societal challenges such as environmental and resource management issues (Xu, 1993), suggesting that the future of social science research would increasingly rely on these methods.
In the early 21st century, Chinese academics advocated for interdisciplinary research and education as essential strategies for leading universities (Chen & Yin, 2001). A significant milestone occurred in 2009 when the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education released guidelines allowing educational institutions to autonomously establish and modify interdisciplinary sub-disciplines within their primary discipline categories. This move officially integrated interdisciplinary studies into China’s academic and degree system. By 2022, 207 institutions had established 729 such sub-disciplines, demonstrating the formal acknowledgment and expansion of interdisciplinary studies (Wang & Li, 2023).
In response to rapid technological advancements and industrial shifts, along with Sino-US trade tensions and technological challenges, China has increasingly recognized the strategic importance of interdisciplinary research for national development. By the end of 2020, interdisciplinary research was officially designated as the 14th discipline category by the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council and the Ministry of Education. This included new primary disciplines such as Integrated Circuit Science and Engineering and National Security Studies, reflecting a heightened national focus on interdisciplinary research and talent cultivation. The 2022 Graduate Education Discipline and Specialty Catalog further expanded the interdisciplinary category to include nine primary disciplines, such as Design Science and Remote Sensing Science and Technology, aimed at addressing key technological and application-driven challenges.
2 The significance of interdisciplinary research
The importance of interdisciplinary research has been increasingly recognized, driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Intrinsically, continuous differentiation within disciplines leads to narrower research perspectives, creating a need for interdisciplinary approaches to foster novel knowledge production and rejuvenate disciplinary growth. Externally, socio-economic demands necessitate interdisciplinary research, supported by substantial funding from governments and enterprises, to tackle complex real-world challenges and facilitate Mode II knowledge production (Weingart, 2010). These dynamics highlight the importance of interdisciplinary efforts in both foundational and applied research domains.
Historically, interdisciplinary research has played a crucial role in addressing applied problems, demonstrating its practical significance. This trend is evident in the evolution of 21st-century universities, which increasingly embrace interdisciplinarity as a catalyst for scientific innovation and economic advancement (Jacobs, 2014). For instance, in China, the establishment of first-level interdisciplinary fields guided by government initiatives underscores a strategic focus on key technological areas. Surveys indicate that a major motivation for graduate students to pursue interdisciplinary research lies in its potential to maximize the societal value of knowledge. This contrasts with traditional academic disciplines, which often fall short in translating scholarly knowledge into practical applications (Rhoten & Parker, 2004). Research findings reveal a higher incidence of interdisciplinary activity in applied domains such as health and materials science compared to more fundamental disciplines (Van Noorden, 2015). This preference within the scientific and academic communities for research with direct societal and economic impacts often comes at the expense of interdisciplinary exploration in basic research (Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011).
However, Interdisciplinary research has been instrumental in advancing basic scientific inquiry and fostering transformative discoveries. It challenges the traditional norms of “normal science”, which prioritizes conformity within disciplines, by advocating for paradigm shifts and the integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives (Kuhn & Hacking, 1970). The creation of new research fields often involves merging methodologies and theories from disparate domains (Besselaar & Heimeriks, 2001), as illustrated by the genesis of molecular biology through the convergence of physics and biology. The advent of molecular biology was marked by physicists shifting their focus to biology, significantly contributing by transferring established research standards and methods from their primary field to this new realm, thereby infusing old problems with fresh research styles (Zuckerman & Merton, 1972). This cross-disciplinary integration introduces innovative approaches to longstanding questions and catalyzes significant scientific breakthroughs, such as the elucidation of protein structures and DNA double helix at the Cavendish Laboratory, marking the dawn of molecular biology (Zhang, 2004). Moreover, interdisciplinary applied research holds the promise of contributing to fundamental scientific progress, echoing the ethos of Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 2011). The Cavendish Laboratory exemplifies the successful fusion of interdisciplinary basic research and education, with many of its Nobel laureates conducting their award-winning work within this interdisciplinary milieu (Mu & Yuan, 2023).
3 Navigating the paradoxes and challenges of interdisciplinary research
3.1 Paradox of interdisciplinary research
Interdisciplinary research, despite its significant value in both academic and applied realms, encounters substantial challenges within traditional disciplinary structures, leading to what is known as the paradox of interdisciplinary research. This paradox presents a dual narrative: while disciplines are often viewed as static and resistant to change, interdisciplinary research is celebrated for its dynamism and innovative potential. However, disciplines’ emphasis on rigor and structure is essential for fostering innovation, whereas interdisciplinary efforts are sometimes critiqued for lacking depth and precision (Weingart, 2010). Despite widespread endorsement of interdisciplinary approaches by academia and research management, there remains a discernible adherence to traditional disciplinary policies in practice. Gibbons et al. (1994) highlighted this paradox, where the promotion of interdisciplinary research often falls short, suggesting a gap between its idealization and practical realization.
At the core of this paradox is the tension between established disciplinary norms and the emergent practices of interdisciplinary research. Crane (1972) in “Invisible College” argued for the necessity of some insularity in scientific communities to foster knowledge growth, while also recognizing the importance of cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange to avoid insularity and arbitrariness. Similarly, Kuhn and Hacking (1970) contrasted the traditional emphasis on consensus within scientific disciplines with the revolutionary and divergent nature of interdisciplinary research, noting potential conflicts between these paradigms. Traditional discipline critics often label interdisciplinary scholars as lacking depth or establishing superficial connections, while proponents argue that traditional disciplines risk becoming irrelevant. Such debates are more pronounced when competing for institutional funding and resources (Darian-Smith & McCarty, 2017).
Interdisciplinary research navigates a complex landscape of challenges across various dimensions. Insights from a qualitative study at the Environment-Society Interdisciplinary Research Center at Arizona State University, including interviews with 18 administrators, reveal that friction between interdisciplinary research and traditional disciplines manifests in epistemic, structural, and affective dimensions (Turner et al., 2015). A comprehensive framework has been proposed to analyze the paradox of interdisciplinary research, encompassing institutional, cognitive, subjective, and organizational paradoxes (Zhang et al., 2023).
3.2 Challenges for interdisciplinary researchers
Interdisciplinary researchers encounter a spectrum of cognitive and emotional challenges at the individual level. Knowledge from different disciplines possesses domain specificity, making the interdisciplinary application of concepts and methods prone to cognitive barriers that can lead to the failure of interdisciplinary research (MacLeod, 2018). Bibliometric analyses suggest that while interdisciplinary research often yields fewer outputs, these outputs tend to be more impactful. This discrepancy may stem from the heightened cognitive demands inherent in such work (Leahey et al., 2017). Interviews with interdisciplinary researchers reveal that despite fostering scientific innovation, interdisciplinary endeavors require substantial time investment and carry a higher risk of failure (Guimarães et al., 2019; Yegros-Yegros et al., 2015). On an emotional level, researchers struggle with their identity, finding it challenging to position themselves within the traditional academic lineage, exacerbating feelings of intellectual isolation (Delamont et al., 1999; Moran, 2010).
Institutionally, interdisciplinary research faces structural challenges. Lloyd (2009) highlights the innovative potential of applying concepts across disciplines yet warns of skepticism from disciplinary purists who may view such efforts as lacking depth. This skepticism is compounded by the absence of established benchmarks in emerging interdisciplinary fields, resulting in biased assessments and difficulties in publication within traditional journals (Jacobs & Frickel, 2009; Li & Chen, 2020; Pfirman & Martin, 2010). Interdisciplinary projects frequently encounter hurdles in funding and recognition due to entrenched preferences within academic and research funding institutions (Bromham et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015). A survey by the NSF in 2004 corroborated the presence of structural barriers, particularly in academic promotion systems that favor disciplinary research over interdisciplinary initiatives (Turner et al., 2015). A field study at a private research university in the United States found that assistant professors are discouraged from engaging in interdisciplinary research because the outcomes are often not recognized in tenure review processes, potentially hindering their academic career advancement (Mäkinen et al., 2024).
The development of interdisciplinary research talent, especially within higher education, presents its own set of challenges. While interdisciplinary research can enrich participants with diverse skills and perspectives, it also risks diluting specialized training and weakening disciplinary identity, complicating the path for students who have yet to solidify their disciplinary foundations (Van Hartesveldt & Giordan, 2008). Graduate students may find themselves at a disadvantage in their interdisciplinary pursuits, struggling to attain the depth of knowledge expected in their fields (Gardner et al., 2012). Some academics advocate for a sequential approach, suggesting that researchers with doctoral degrees are more suitable for interdisciplinary research to ensure robust disciplinary grounding (Delamont et al., 1999). Empirical studies have shown that a broad interdisciplinary scope in doctoral education correlates with lower proficiency in academic norms and decreased research output (Bao, 2020; Fu et al., 2021). Moreover, while interdisciplinary training aims to foster collaboration and autonomy, it may inadvertently lead to a sense of alienation among doctoral students, impacting their sense of belonging within the academic community (Brodin & Avery, 2020).
4 Conclusion and implication
Interdisciplinary research leveraging the foundational principles of established disciplines, represents a significant evolution in academic research methodologies. Traditional disciplines, established in the 19th century, laid the groundwork for the emergence of interdisciplinary research in the 20th century, often challenging conventional academic boundaries. The advancement of interdisciplinary research has been primarily driven by two factors: the intrinsic desire within the academic community for innovative and pioneering research, and extrinsic pressures from political, military, and economic needs. Notably, the latter has exerted a more considerable influence, as exemplified by the surge in interdisciplinary research triggered by the demands of the post-World War II era. In contemporary times, initiatives like China’s strategic establishment of an interdisciplinary degree system highlight targeted efforts to meet specific national objectives. However, this brings to light the underappreciated role of basic science in interdisciplinary research and the necessity for policies that support open-ended and innovative interdisciplinary exploration, avoiding narrowly utilitarian perspectives.
The integration of interdisciplinary approaches within both foundational research and applied technological innovation faces several obstacles, highlighting the paradox of interdisciplinary research. This paradox reveals resistance from traditional disciplinary frameworks against incorporating interdisciplinary methodologies. While disciplines evolve through such cross-disciplinary interactions, interdisciplinary research fosters the development of new academic communities. Although both traditional (Mode I) and interdisciplinary (Mode II) approaches are invaluable for knowledge production, they are not interchangeable but rather complementary. Currently, a tension exists between these two research paradigms, often positioning interdisciplinary research at a disadvantage. Addressing this imbalance requires policymakers to promote dialogue across disciplines and enhance support structures for interdisciplinary endeavors. For instance, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) established the Department of Interdisciplinary Sciences in 2020. This department coordinates overall funding in the interdisciplinary science field under NSFC, creating new avenues for supporting interdisciplinary research projects. Similarly, research institutions such as the Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies at Peking University, the Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences at Tsinghua University, the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Renmin University of China, and the Center for Systems Biomedicine at Shanghai Jiao Tong University have been established to foster the development of interdisciplinary research.
Furthermore, the rise of interdisciplinary research has led to a shift in educational strategies, introducing diverse forms of interdisciplinary learning at various educational stages. This emphasis on nurturing interdisciplinary talents, particularly in higher education, has garnered significant attention. University students’ foundational knowledge from primary and secondary education prepares them for interdisciplinary pursuits. Doctoral education, in particular, plays a pivotal role in developing interdisciplinary research capabilities, which are essential for the field’s future growth. However, both undergraduate and graduate students face the challenge of balancing the breadth of interdisciplinary study with the depth of specialization. Therefore, universities must devise interdisciplinary training models that effectively integrate with and complement existing disciplinary education frameworks.
Historically, Chinese higher education has been significantly influenced by the former Soviet Union, leading to a system with a strong emphasis on specialized education and robust professional training. However, this system has lacked comprehensive general education at the undergraduate level. As a result, graduate students in China may need to shift their focus from additional specialized education to interdisciplinary research training. Interdisciplinary training enhances critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and adaptability, which are crucial for success in a rapidly changing job market. Graduates with interdisciplinary experience are better equipped to navigate the complexities of modern careers, where the ability to collaborate across disciplines is highly valued.
Given these considerations, Chinese universities should revise their curricula and institutional policies to support interdisciplinary research and education. This includes creating opportunities for cross-disciplinary courses, encouraging faculty collaboration across departments, and providing resources and infrastructure to facilitate interdisciplinary projects. By adopting a more interdisciplinary approach, Chinese higher education can produce graduates who are not only experts in their fields but also versatile thinkers capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges of the 21st century. This evolution will bridge the gap between specialized training and the need for a broader, more integrated educational experience, ultimately benefiting both the academic community and society at large.
Author contributions
Xiaoqiang Li (lixiaoqiang@pku.edu.com): Visualization (Lead), Writing-original draft (Lead), Writing-review and editing (Supporting); Fen Cai(fencai@pku.edu.cn): Visualization (Lead), Writing-original draft(Lead), Writing-review and editing(Lead), Project administration (Supporting); Jintao Bao (baojintao@pku.edu.com): Conceptualization(Lead), Project administration (Lead), Resources (Equal); Yuqing Jian (jyq0824@stu.pku.edu.cn), Supervision (Lead),Writing-review & editing (Supporting); Zehui Sun (zehuisun@pku.edu.cn): Conceptualization (Supporting), Resources (Equal); Xin Xie (xinxie.pku@gmail.com): Conceptualization (Lead), Formal analysis (Lead), Visualization (Lead), Writing-original draft (Lead), Writing-review & editing (Supporting).
Funding Information
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (No. 72304019), Peking University Health Science Center Project (No. 2023YB46), the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Special Purpose (No. J2124013), and the ISTIC-Clarivate Joint Laboratory for Scientometrics (No. IT2319).